Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Economic Growth

Angela Watkinson: What changes there have been to his projections for economic growth since (a) the 2002 Budget and (b) the 2002 pre-Budget Report.

Paul Boateng: In the 2002 Budget, United Kingdom GDP growth was forecast to be 3 to 3½ per cent. in 2003 and 2½ to 3 per cent. in 2004. In the 2002 pre-Budget report, growth was forecast to be 2½ to 3 per cent. in 2003 and 3 to 3½ per cent. in 2004. In this year's Budget, our forecasts are growth of 2 to 2½ per cent. in 2003 and 3 to 3½ per cent. in 2004.

Angela Watkinson: The Chancellor of the Exchequer downgraded his economic growth predictions in his statement last autumn and again in April. Even his new figures are out of step with those of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Why should we believe he has got it right now?

Paul Boateng: What we have got right in these uncertain times, when America, Germany and Japan have been in recession for the past two years, is sound economic fundamentals: low interest rates, low inflation and a record number of people in employment—all things that the Conservatives got terribly wrong.

Roger Casale: May I tell my right hon. Friend on behalf of households and businesses in my constituency that the most remarkable thing about the 2002 forecast was that, despite global recession, we were able to predict and to deliver economic growth? Is it not the case that the business cycle in the UK previously worked in such a way that shocks from the outside world were amplified, often with disastrous consequences for investment, jobs and growth in the UK? Now, those external shocks are mitigated, exactly because of the framework for macro-economic stability that we have put in place.

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend is right. We took the hard decisions in the early days to set the Bank of England free, opposed by Conservative Members, and to establish the new deal, opposed by Conservative Members. We took the decisions that were necessary in order to create the climate of stability that is the best news that business can have. That is why we are succeeding in creating jobs. Currently, we are doing better than the other G7 countries on employment and indeed doing increasingly well on investment and productivity.

John Redwood: Given the importance of rising house prices to confidence, consumption and growth in the UK, what lower growth forecast will be needed given the Chancellor's decision to tax the housing market into submission and to try to stop house price rises? When will the capital gains tax and higher stamp duty come in?

Paul Boateng: There is no such intention. That is a bit rich coming from the right hon. Gentleman, who served in a Government under whom Britain suffered two of the deepest and longest recessions since the second world war, during which unemployment rose to 3 million, inflation rose to almost 10 per cent., interest rates hit 15 per cent. and negative equity hit an all-time high. We will take no lessons from Conservative Members on economic stewardship. Our record is one to be proud of. His was one to be ashamed of.

Bob Blizzard: Has not the substantial level of investment by the British oil and gas industry made a major contribution to economic growth over many years? Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the low level of exploration that we have had for the past two years, which threatens that continued investment at that level? I welcome the announcement in the Budget that that matter was being looked at, but will he undertake to complete that review speedily so that some proposals can be brought forward for the pre-Budget report in the autumn?

Paul Boateng: I thank my hon. Friend for all the efforts that he puts in on behalf of the oil industry and of those in his constituency who benefit from it. It was as a result of representations such as his that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took the actions that he did in the last Budget to encourage and support new investment in the oil industry. Those steps are specifically designed to promote research and development, to promote the exercises in modernisation and exploration that are the best hope for his industry and offer the most to UK plc.

Peter Tapsell: Why does the Chief Secretary think that the introduction of the euro has so much reduced economic growth in Germany, with inevitable knock-on effects in this country? Do Treasury Ministers agree that the unwise monetary policies of the European Central Bank have increased the risk that the German recession will have an adverse effect on our economy?

Paul Boateng: The hon. Gentleman parades the prejudices and misconceptions of his party in relation to the euro. His analysis of the German economy is a little simplistic. He will agree that we need to ensure that we implement the reforms in relation to the growth and stability pact and the European Central Bank outlined in the Chancellor's statement earlier this week. Allied with the reforms in our own economy, those can only be good news for our economy and that of Germany and the rest of the eurozone.

Manufacturing

Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on the impact of his economic policies on manufacturing.

Gordon Brown: Manufacturing output is expected to grow by between ¼ and ¾ per cent. this year, and by between 2¼ and 2¾ per cent. in 2004. Of vital importance to manufacturing in every region of this country is our commitment to pursue policies for economic stability.

Tony Lloyd: I thank my right hon. Friend, because under this Government manufacturing has been seen as a vital part of the whole economic balance. That is in contrast with previous Governments, who gave manufacturing such a hard time. Does he accept, however, that, with the recent recession in manufacturing, which has seen cuts in employment and production, we need to restate the importance of growth and the fact that a consistent manufacturing base is at the very centre? Does he agree that now that the economy is getting into balance, the preoccupation with the financial services sector—a constant feature of previous Governments—is not something that we should pursue?

Gordon Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for the efforts that he puts in for manufacturing in his constituency and the wider north-west. He will have noticed that manufacturing output was rising last month, and that our policies are designed to give this country modern manufacturing strength. In contrast to the previous Government, who preferred services to manufacturing, we want that modern manufacturing strength, and that is why we are introducing the research and development tax credit, through which £200 million has already gone to small businesses; regional venture capital funds, which manufacturing in his region is benefiting from; and permanent capital allowances, which benefit manufacturing in particular. Most important of all, interest rates in this country, which averaged 10.5 per cent. under the Conservatives, have averaged 5 per cent. under this Labour Government, and that is why we have the economic stability on which we can build. No one is complacent, but we will build on this.

Michael Howard: Does not the future of our manufacturing base depend crucially on trade? Will the Chancellor now answer one of the many questions that he did not answer on Monday? Will he confirm that his figures for increased trade if we were to join the euro are based on studies of currency unions involving Angola and Mozambique; Burkina Faso and Chad; Vatican City and San Marino; and Tuvalu and Tonga?

Gordon Brown: What the study says—[Hon. Members: "Answer."] What the study says, and I shall read it directly, is that those conducting it discount industrialising and non-industrialised countries and that they have looked at the experience of the euro over its first few years, and whether there has been an increase in trade in the euro area. The idea that, in a single currency area, with the exchange rate barriers removed and a far freer flow of trade, no benefits are produced is quite ridiculous. If the Opposition are going to peddle the idea that somehow, with sustainable convergence, there are no advantages in trade, that reveals exactly where the Shadow Chancellor wants to take his party today, and that is against the European Union altogether.

Michael Howard: No, no. That will not do, I am afraid. Let us look at the Treasury documents. Will the Chancellor confirm that paragraph 3.36 on page 35 of "EMU and business sectors" expresses concern that, far from trade increasing,
	"In the absence of an independent nominal exchange rate, and if wage growth exceeded that in other EU countries without an offsetting productivity gain, UK export levels could fall and firms would have to reduce output and employment"?
	Why did he not mention that on Monday? Do not manufacturing industry and others need to be given a balanced assessment of euro membership?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should turn to the conclusion on what EMU could mean for UK trade, where what he has been going on about for the past few days—comparisons with industrialising areas—is discounted, and it is stated very clearly that there have been gains in trading in the euro area identified by all the studies that have been carried out, which he cannot deny. Of course the issue is sustainable convergence, because we are not going to make the mistakes of the exchange rate mechanism era with which he is associated. [Interruption.] Oh, so we are to blame for the Conservatives' decision, and an apology from the shadow Chancellor is enough! It was this shadow Chancellor who said that we must punish the people who made mistakes.

Michael Howard: I have in fact apologised for the euro; will the Chancellor apologise for the fact that he was calling for early entry into the euro a year before we joined? Is it not true that even the Treasury's documents put what it describes as potential increases in trade—potential increases—that are critically dependent on sustained convergence in a range of between 5 and 50 per cent.? So why is the Chancellor quoting just the 50 per cent. figure? Why did he ignore the fact that the Treasury's own figure for the effect so far in the euro area, to which he has just referred, is much lower? Why did he also ignore the conclusion that the
	"potential benefit of fixed exchange rates to the traded goods sector may be less than is sometimes claimed", and the further conclusion that there is some "evidence" for
	"the view that euro membership would not increase UK euro trade by much"?
	Is it not the case that the Government's presentation of information on the euro has been even dodgier than their presentation of intelligence on Iraq? Is it any wonder that nobody believes a word they say?

Gordon Brown: The party that has a problem with credibility on matters European is the Conservative party. [Interruption.] Let us recall the following: interest rates at 15 per cent., 10 per cent. inflation, 1 million jobs lost in manufacturing, unemployment up by 1 million, negative equity—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chancellor has been asked a series of questions and he is entitled to be able to reply without shouting.

Gordon Brown: If the shadow Chancellor, who is trying to distort the Treasury summaries, were to quote fairly from these studies, he would see that the Treasury discounted all that he said about non-industrialised countries on Monday in its assessment, and that our assessment is based on real happenings within the euro area, in which trade has increased. Of course we give a range of figures, because this issue depends on sustainable convergence. But it is absolutely the case that in a single currency area such as the United States, trade between the different parts of the area increases as a result of barriers being removed.
	The Conservatives want to rewrite every part of history in this matter, but the fact is that the only reason why the shadow Chancellor fails to give us a balanced assessment is that he has no interest in joining the euro. He is against it as a point of dogma, and he would be against it even if all the proof were before him that there are indeed matters in the national economic interest that commend it to us. The Conservative party had better start thinking again about these issues.

Kevan Jones: One of the major problems facing manufacturing in the north-east is the high value of the pound against the euro. This is a particular problem in the north-east because 78 per cent. of the region's exports are to the eurozone. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one advantage of joining the eurozone would be to give a boost to manufacturing in regions such as the north-east?

Gordon Brown: Our studies set out these issues in great detail, and the fact that there is open government in this regard is in complete contrast to what happened when we entered the exchange rate mechanism, when no assessment was published or, so far as I can see, even made. We have set out the advantages in trade, the advantages in exchange rate stability and the advantages in cutting the cost of currency transactions. But we also say very clearly that these advantages and this potential are dependent on there being sustainable convergence: in other words, that we are able to live comfortably with the euro area interest rate.
	We have presented a balanced picture of the national economic interest in this matter, and I agree with my hon. Friend that we should look at all the issues, particularly as they affect individual regions such as the north-east, which he represents. But it is outrageous for the Conservative party to distort one piece of information and then to use it as a case not even for rejecting the euro, but for rejecting the European Union altogether.

Matthew Taylor: Assuming that the Chancellor said enough on Monday to satisfy the Prime Minister on the euro, and that he therefore has no worries about the forthcoming Cabinet reshuffle, could he tell us whether he accepts the advice received in the study that he commissioned from Professor Simon Wren Lewis? Over the last few years, manufacturing has seen a slump in investment and jobs, associated with the high value of the pound, but the Government have refused to clarify what they believe the right equilibrium rate for the exchange rate would be. Professor Wren Lewis suggests Euro1.37 to the pound; does the Chancellor accept that recommendation?

Gordon Brown: Professor Wren Lewis made that estimate on the basis of the position as he saw it a year ago when he carried out his study. It was based on his analysis of the trading relationships evident at the time. However, the present Government are not going to set an exchange rate target, which is the Liberal Democrat party policy, not ours. We believe in a stable and competitive exchange rate over the medium term, and that that exchange rate will reflect fundamentals.
	As to joining the euro, if a decision were taken before the point of transition, we would deal with it, but I caution the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) about his over-enthusiasm for ignoring all the national economic interest questions in this matter. It is one thing to believe in the principle of the euro, but quite another to demand that we join it at every point in time, no matter what the exchange rate, interest rates and the wider economic picture. The summary of our assessment shows that, if we had taken the hon. Gentleman's advice in 1999, there would have been a stop-go cycle, leading to exactly the same problems that the Conservatives gave us in the early 90s.

World Debt

Tom Clarke: What progress has been made in pursuit of Government strategy on relief of third world debt.

Valerie Davey: If he will make a statement on the progress the G7 Finance Ministers are making in tackling world debt.

Betty Williams: What further measures he is taking with G7 Finance Ministers to tackle world poverty.

Gordon Brown: Following the Evian summit, finance Ministers will review debt relief to consider an extra £1 billion for the poorest countries. Europe will now produce proposals to match the welcome American contribution to the global health fund, particularly to deal with HIV/AIDS. In addition, G8 finance Ministers have been asked to report by September on the UK's proposal for an international finance facility, which will raise up to £50 billion annually to fund the millennium development goals. On that, I am grateful to have had all-party support.

Tom Clarke: I congratulate the Chancellor on the tremendous energy and enthusiasm that he has shown on issues of international debt, backed by one of the strongest economies this country has ever known. Specifically on non-heavily indebted poor countries and middle-income countries, will the Chancellor tell us what progress we are making, particularly in the light of G8 involvement? Finally, on falling commodity prices, drought and other issues, is the Chancellor satisfied that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund operate with criteria that are appropriate to reaching the millennium goals that he mentioned?

Gordon Brown: My right hon. Friend has taken a long-term interest in these matters and has led the campaign for debt relief in his own area. On debt relief, $1 billion was pledged at the last G7 summit in Canada, and that money has now been put into the World Bank trust fund. After a submission by finance Ministers at the G8 Evian summit, it was recognised that more needed to be done for countries at the point of completion. Twenty-six countries are in the debt relief process; eight have completed, but they need additional money to deal with the changes that have taken place, particularly in commodity prices, since the debt relief package was agreed. We have been asked by the Heads of Government to examine how best to improve the system so that those countries can receive the benefit of debt relief, freeing up resources for education and health rather than having to spend them on repaying debt. I am confident that the £62 billion of debt relief that we are achieving now will be increased as a result of the proposals.
	My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need a new finance facility so that we can move forward with anti-poverty programmes to meet the millennium development goals. I believe that that issue unites the whole House and I hope that, together with other countries, we can make further progress over the next few months.

Valerie Davey: I thank the Chancellor for the international leadership that he gives on this issue. What progress is being made, specifically, to encourage other countries to sign up to the Government's proposal for the international finance facility?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking an interest in the issue and leading on it in her constituency. I am pleased to say that the G8 communiqué from Evian mentioned the international finance facility. The Finance Ministers have been asked to produce a report on the issue. The timescale is short, because we have to do it by September. It is recognised that there is a shortfall in funding to meet the millennium development goals and to maximise the opportunity given by the Monterrey agreements, in which the US and Europe agreed to pay more money. We can build on that with a finance facility that uses funds from the private sector. We are confident that our September report will be the next stage in persuading countries round the world that that is the way forward. We have also had support from African countries and many other countries that are not part of the G7.

Betty Williams: In setting ourselves ambitious targets for achieving the millennium development goals, how confident is my right hon. Friend that all the industrialised countries will make available the resources necessary to meet the challenge? What encouragement can he give those organisations led by Christian Aid which are organising rallies at the end of this month and are campaigning for trade rules to be weighted in favour of poor people?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has played a major part in the campaign on that issue in Wales, and I also applaud the work of Christian Aid, whose campaign week has just finished. During its last campaign, my mother sent me a postcard at the Treasury demanding that I took action and spent more money, so it was obviously a successful and broad-based campaign. The millennium development goals cannot be achieved without the additional finance, but I believe that we will win wider support for it. I applaud the Opposition Front Benchers, the Liberal Democrats and other parties, because it is important that we have all-party support as we take the initiative round the world.

Michael Jack: The Chancellor will be aware of the role of private investment in stimulating economic activity in the indebted nations as a way of relieving their plight. To that end, will he consider developing a tax credit mechanism that would encourage private sector investment in the poorest countries, to help to offset the risks of investing in them but to encourage that beneficial activity?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in the matter as a former Treasury Minister. He may know that we have introduced a tax credit for pharmaceutical companies, which they can use in developing countries and set against tax in Britain. That started at the beginning of April and I hope it will yield results. I will also look at the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman has made for other private sector companies. If only 1 per cent. of private investment round the world is in Africa, the chance for that continent to move forward is limited. Therefore, we must stimulate far more private investment. The right hon. Gentleman will welcome the International Monetary Fund initiatives to set up centres to advise countries about obtaining such investment, and I was talking to a group of American business men yesterday about those issues. If the right hon. Gentleman sends me his specific proposals, I shall look at them.

John Baron: Given that we hand over nearly £1 billion a year to the EU overseas aid package, and given that the majority of that money is spent on political purposes—as evidenced by the fact that Poland receives twice as much aid as Latin America and Asia combined—does the Chancellor agree that that money could be so much better spent on tackling world poverty if it was redirected to where it was most desperately needed?

Gordon Brown: That is a European issue on which we can agree. There is a need for major reform in the operation of the European aid budget and the European development fund. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that the European development fund provided money when debt relief was provided, and that was a useful initiative on its part. As for the global health fund, the US Government have made a contribution of $3 billion and it is proposed that the European development fund make a similar contribution. I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely, because only 38 per cent. of money from the fund goes to the poorest countries and, therefore, to tackle poverty. That is not acceptable and that is why I hope he will support proposals that the Department for International Development and the Treasury have already put forward to reform that aid budget. I believe that we will win support from other countries in Europe which understand clearly that our responsibilities to the poorest countries of the world must mean that we get the best out of the European aid budget, so that it tackles poverty, illiteracy and disease.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Chancellor agree that current events in Zimbabwe underline the fact that much third-world debt has been caused by the profligate attitudes and policies of dictators, which also deter people from investing in southern Africa? Does he have a mechanism for ensuring that future aid, including the aid that Zimbabwe will need when it is free again, will be directed with proper regard for ensuring that it does not fall into the wrong hands?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. As he knows, Zimbabwe is not a HIPC country and does not receive money from that initiative. The hon. Gentleman is involved in all the parliamentary get-togethers in the Commonwealth that look at these issues, and so will know that the next stage is the African initiative, the New Partnership for Africa's Development. That has got to be made to work, but the conditionality built into NEPAD is that the money will be provided only if we can be absolutely sure that there is transparency in the way that it is handed out; that anti-corruption mechanisms are put in place; that there is a welcoming environment for the investment that is needed for the future; and that policies for economic stability are being pursued. Equally, we have a duty towards all the countries in Africa that are making efforts to put those conditions in place to provide money to relieve illiteracy, disease and poverty. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and I can agree with each other on those matters, as well as on Zimbabwe.

Julia Drown: A number of hon. Members heard from Senegalese parliamentarians yesterday about their frustration at the debt process. They said that, if the previous HIPC process had worked, there should be no need to launch another decade of poverty relief. One of their main frustrations was that the African voice was not heard clearly enough. Would my right hon. Friend support giving African countries an extra seat on the boards of the IMF and the World Bank, and reallocating shares of votes according to population rather than according to the wealth of individual countries?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who does a great deal of work on these matters. Her meetings with delegations from other countries are very important indeed. We have been trying to reform the operation of the IMF, whose committee I chair. More resources have been made available for the African countries. South Africa's Finance Minister, the chairman of the development committee, has been invited to sit on the IMF committee, thus securing greater representation of the African voice. In respect of the international finance facility, we have made a point of sending representatives to explain to Finance Ministers in countries around Africa what we are doing. I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about ensuring that the voice of Africa is heard properly. The whole point of the NEPAD initiative is to establish a partnership in which the voices of the developed and the developing countries can come together.

Financial Flows (EU)

Michael Fabricant: If the Treasury will conduct an analysis identifying the (a) direct and (b) indirect financial flows in and out of the United Kingdom arising from EU membership; and if he will make a statement.

Gordon Brown: The UK conducts the majority of its trade—50 per cent.—with the EU. It also receives 55 per cent. of its inward foreign direct investment from the EU, and invests 40 per cent. of its outward foreign direct investment there. In addition, 61 per cent. of the UK's inward mergers and acquisitions activity, and 54 per cent. of its outward mergers and acquisition activity, are also with the EU.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for that answer, but it does not cover indirect fund flows from and into the UK. In a recent parliamentary answer, the Foreign Office confirmed that no such analysis, including of indirect fund flows, has been undertaken since around 1992. Will the Chancellor ensure that such an analysis is now made? Is he aware that a recent analysis by the US Treasury suggested that the net cost to the UK of EU membership was of the order of $40 billion a year—almost equivalent to a doubling of the state pension. Clearly, that finding cannot be true. No Opposition Member believes that there can be any question of withdrawal from the EU, but it is not about time that our own Treasury conducted an analysis of indirect and direct costs, so that we can know how much we benefit from the EU?

Gordon Brown: I have looked at the American authorities' analysis and I shall do so in more detail now that the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to it again. He says that no analysis has been conducted since 1992. He might have been more successful in persuading the previous Government to conduct it between 1992 and 1997.
	The hon. Gentleman really cannot tell us that he does not want to take Britain out of the European Union. I shall read from his article in The Birmingham Post. He wrote:
	"I believe that 20 or 30 years from now, far from debating the euro, we might well be out of the European Union altogether and into something far more prosperous and constructive."

Barry Sheerman: If my right hon. Friend performs that analysis, will he be sure to track how much inward investment we have received, especially in manufacturing, since we became been a member of the EU? Most of the figures I have seen show the beneficial effects of membership in terms of jobs, investment and productivity.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend chairs the Select Committee on Education and Skills and throughout his parliamentary career has taken an interest in all matters industrial, so he knows that since 1972, when 40 per cent. of our trade was with the EU, the figure has risen to 55 per cent. It was on that basis that the figure of 3 million jobs was first used, if I remember aright, by the Confederation of British Industry about 10 years ago, and has been updated ever since. It would be difficult for any Member to deny that there has been increased trade within the EU as a result of what has happened over the past 30 years or that that is very important to the future of every region of our country. My hon. Friend is right to remind people that those who want to take us out of the European Union are making a terrible mistake.

Peter Lilley: Unlike the Chancellor, who was elected to the House on a pledge to leave the European Community, I have always been, and remain, an unwavering supporter of British membership, so I should welcome a study of the kind advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). Such a study would show that, over recent years, it has been to the benefit of this country to be a member of the EC but that as the Chancellor has shown recently, it would have been to our disadvantage to have been in the euro. Will the Chancellor confirm that there can be benefits from being in Europe yet outside the euro?

Gordon Brown: I have just said that we would have been wrong to take the advice of the Liberal party and to join the euro in 1999. When the Liberals look at our detailed studies, they will see that their 1999 proposal was wrong. Equally, however, we would be wrong to rule out membership of the euro entirely. The Conservative party is making a historic mistake. The Conservatives have turned their back on their previous position—to review membership during a Parliament and then to leave it for two Parliaments—and they are now against it altogether. I am afraid that they are in danger of moving from being not just against the euro but against Europe altogether, although I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is not.

Tax Credits

Helen Jones: What estimate he has made of the impact of the new tax credits on low-income families in Warrington, North; and if he will make a statement.

Dawn Primarolo: Six million families are expected to benefit from the new tax credits, including 250,000 low-income working families without children.
	Seven hundred and fifty thousand families in north-west England are expected to receive the child tax credit, and 210,000 families in the region are expected to receive the working tax credit, including some who are also expected to receive the child tax credit.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that, despite some of the difficulties of implementation, the new system of tax credits will provide a major boost to the incomes of many families in constituencies such as mine? However, the problems that my office is picking up result mainly from people filling in the forms wrongly or from changes in circumstances that they have notified since completing the original form. Will my right hon. Friend look into the application process for tax credits and, if possible, simplify it, and will she also consider how we can deal more quickly with changes in circumstances, so that families are not left in the lurch?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is right about the benefits to families from the new tax credits; millions and millions of families have applied.
	On moving to the new system, we required information to establish the claim and looked for clear ways to show simple things on the application form—name, address, national insurance number, work details, pay and number of children and their age. It was important to get all those details into the system.
	Next year, the renewal of claims for those already in the system will be much simpler and the forms will be much shorter. Despite the fact that the new tax credit forms are half the size of those for the working families tax credit—its predecessor—and notwithstanding the extensive testing that we did on the original form, I agree that it would be wise to consider whether further improvements could be made.

Mark Prisk: Many people in Warrington, North—indeed, in the whole north-west—would be interested in the Paymaster General's answer. On 28 April, she promised the House that
	"anyone who has made a complete application and has yet to receive money will do so by the end of this week".—[Official Report, 28 April 2003; Vol. 404, c. 54.]
	Obviously that would include people from Warrington, North. That week ended on 2 May, yet, one month later on 4 June, the Government's own figures showed that, in fact, 750,000 eligible claimants across the country had yet to be paid. Why did the Paymaster General break her promise? Given what this shambles has cost people in bank charges and interest payments, will she now apologise to the many families affected and compensate all those who are out of pocket?

Dawn Primarolo: I appreciate that figures are challenging for the hon. Gentleman, but, to return the statement that I made on 28 April and the number of claims that we had received by that date, I told the House that those claims would be either processed into payment or claimants would be contacted where issues were still outstanding. Every day, because of the popularity of this policy, thousands of forms arrive, and the position that I stated on 28 April remains the case. It is important to check applications with outstanding queries, because I am sure the House would not wish us to pay public money to those who may not be entitled to it, but every claim received by that date is in payment or the claimant has been contacted by the Revenue to ensure that the claim is correct.

VAT (Tourism Services)

Elfyn Llwyd: When he last met representatives of the tourism industry to discuss value added tax rates applicable to tourism services; and if he will make a statement.

John Healey: There have been no recent discussions on that specific subject, but whenever we receive representations on tax matters we consider them carefully.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister is right: the Government probably consider such representations carefully, but they do not do very much in this sector. May I remind the House that hotel accommodation in the United Kingdom is very expensive in comparison with other European countries? For example, France has a 5.5 per cent. VAT rate; Spain, 7 per cent.; and Ireland, 12.5 per cent. Would it not be a boost for the tourism industry, which is a very large employer in the UK, to look again at the VAT rate?

John Healey: It might not offer the boost that the hon. Gentleman imagines, and let me explain why. We have the highest VAT registration threshold anywhere in the European Union, so half the hotels in this country do not fall within the system and therefore do not charge VAT. The type of measure that he proposes would cost the Exchequer about £650 million, most of which would benefit the major hotel chains and luxury city hotels. So the blunt measure that he proposes may not have the effect that he would wish.

Paul Farrelly: My hon. Friend may not be aware that tourism is one sector that we are trying to develop in north Staffordshire, precisely because of the difficulties in our manufacturing industry and the urgent need for regeneration, so I welcome the Chancellor's Budget commitment to regionalism, but may I ask all my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench whether—as well as supporting our diversification efforts, including tourism—they would be receptive to a bid from north Staffordshire for Government agency jobs that will relocate from London and the prosperous south-east in future?

John Healey: I welcome the efforts that my hon. Friend and those with whom he is involved in north Staffordshire are making to promote tourism. I know how beautiful the area is, and there must be a lot of potential to develop. On the specific point that he makes, the movement of civil service jobs out into the regions of England is being considered at the moment, and we will report on any plan in due course.

Teddy Taylor: Will the Economic Secretary clarify the legal situation, bearing in mind our EU obligations? Do the Government, in this Parliament, have the right to abolish VAT on tourism services, for example, or to move the rate from the higher band to the lower band? What freedom of action is available to the Government?

John Healey: VAT in this country is governed by European rules. We have long-standing formal agreements with other European states that we cannot introduce new zero rates or extend or introduce new ones, to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In relation to reduced rates and tourism, the Government considered the matter in 1998. No persuasive economic case existed for moving, as I have indicated, and there was not a strong fiscal case for doing so either. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that little has changed since then.

Pensioner Incomes

Bob Spink: What the average income of pensioners was in 2002–03.

Paul Boateng: The latest information available is for 2000–01. In that year, pensioner couples had an average income of £301 per week, and single pensioners had an average income of £160 per week.

Bob Spink: Does the Chief Secretary accept that the highway robbery of £5 billion a year from pension funds through advance corporation tax by the Chancellor and his partner in crime, the Prime Minister, is a major cause of the devastating failure of final salary pension schemes?

Paul Boateng: No, that analysis is as misleading as it is inaccurate. The truth is that ACT was part of a wider package that involved reductions in corporation tax—long overdue reforms addressing a distortion that was not promoting investment in the British economy, which ought to be widely welcomed on both sides of the House.

David Cairns: When calculating pensioners' income, does my right hon. Friend set aside expenditure that pensioners incurred previously but no longer have to incur—in particular, expenditure on eye tests, bus travel and, for older pensioners, television licences? Is not the true income of pensioners even greater when that is taken into consideration, showing that pensioners are much better off under this Government than they were under the Conservative Government?

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. He might have added to it the reduction in VAT on fuel, concessionary travel for pensioners and the introduction of a 10p starting rate of tax, all of which have benefited pensioners. All of those are things that we have done, and that Conservative Members failed consistently to do during the years in which they had stewardship of the economy.

David Laws: On the issue of pensioner incomes, does the Chief Secretary recall reading recently about the agreement between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister a numberof years ago to sign up to something called a fairness agenda? Under what part of the fairness agenda should the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who earns about £140,000 per year, pay the same council tax as many poor pensioners on far lower incomes?

Paul Boateng: The hon. Gentleman's point fails to address the real benefits that have accrued to pensioners. The reality is that the fairness to pensioners comes from an average increase for the poorest third of pensioner households of £1,600 a year in real terms, amounting to more than £30 a week, from October 2003. That is the real fairness for pensioners. With the minimum income guarantee, and with 400,000 fewer pensioners living in relative low-income households than in 1996–97, pensioners are really benefiting from the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Angela Eagle: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations from many pensioners who live in Wallasey and elsewhere on the magnificent record in ending pensioner poverty, with the introduction of the minimum income guarantee, and in dealing with the terrible legacy of pensioner poverty left by the previous Government? Will he also look forward to the introduction of the pension credit, which will build on that, in October?

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I want to pay tribute to the contribution that she made as a Minister in the Department of Social Security, as it then was, to alleviating pensioner poverty. The reality is that, as a result of the pension credit, we are currently spending £9.2 billion extra in real terms on pensioners, which will be £5.7 billion more in 2004–05 than if the basic state pension had been linked to earnings since 1998. Those are real benefits in tackling pensioner poverty.

Private Finance Initiative

Gregory Barker: What the current total is of PFI debt guaranteed by the Treasury; and what the mechanism is for reflecting this in the national accounts.

Paul Boateng: PFI debt is not normally guaranteed by the Treasury. A letter of comfort has, however, been issued in relation to the debt issued by London Underground. A guarantee is in place in relation to the bonds issued for the public-private partnership development of the channel tunnel rail ink. Contingent liabilities for both have been laid before the House.

Gregory Barker: Many people will be surprised that the total PFI figure is not larger, but is that not because the Government exclude from their PFI calculations the debt of Network Rail and London Underground? Can the Chief Secretary tell the House what the total PFI figure would be if it included the debt of Network Rail, as the National Audit Office says it should?

Paul Boateng: I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly: £28.9 billion. All our PFI deals are subject to audit by the NAO or the appropriate audit body. The rules for accounting for PFI are drawn up by the independent Accounting Standards Board, not by the Government. We have a record of transparency and accountability that far exceeds the record of the previous Administration.

Howard Flight: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that total Government PFI liabilities have risen some 17 per cent. to £109 billion, and that those gross liabilities, payable over 25 years, are now equivalent to 12.5 per cent. of GDP or, if discounted at 5 per cent.—a high level in today's interest rate environment—to 9 per cent. of GDP? On the figures that he has just given, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if one adds to those the liabilities guaranteed by the Strategic Rail Authority, the figure is 15.5 per cent. of GDP, or 12 per cent. of GDP, which the Government have off balance sheet, resulting from PFI and PPP liabilities? [Interruption.] The Chancellor, who is chattering to himself, has not commented that no other EU country has off balance sheet PFI or PPP liabilities of that size. Do the Government propose to harmonise or reduce their PFI liabilities as part of their convergence agenda?

Paul Boateng: The hon. Gentleman made rather a mess of that one. He makes precisely the opposite point from that made by his hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). The figures are as I gave them to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. The rules that we use to account for PFI are no different from the accounting treatment used by the previous Government. If anything, the accounting standards have become stricter since 1997 because of our adoption of FRS 5. The only figure that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) need bear in mind is the 20 per cent. cut in public services—which are currently being improved by PFI—that would be imposed were he ever to gain the stewardship of our economy.

Biofuel Duty

Paddy Tipping: If he will make a statement on the level of duty on biofuels.

John Healey: In his Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that, from 1 January 2005, we would introduce a duty incentive for bioethanol, set at 20p per litre below the rate for sulphur-free petrol. Biodiesel already benefits from a duty incentive of 20p per litre below the rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel.

Paddy Tipping: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continuing interest in the matter. Has he had an opportunity to read the recently published Sheffield Hallam university report, which concludes that the rate of carbon dioxide reduction is greater than previously thought? Given the clear environmental gains and the new biofuels directive that is coming, will he and his colleagues re-examine the rate of duty in time for the next Budget?

John Healey: I am indeed aware of a Sheffield Hallam university study. It was designed to give us better evidence to make such judgments in future. For the moment, we judge the duty rates that we have set to be appropriate to reflect both the potential environmental benefits of biofuels and what is affordable and good value for public money to achieve those environmental gains.

Julian Brazier: Over the years, the Chancellor has consistently advocated in his Budgets the role of the Treasury in promoting good environmental practice and given us lectures on joined-up government. Is there not an inconsistency between the policy of rebates for biofuels that the Minister has just announced and the determination of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the crops cannot be grown on land set aside and otherwise wasted?

John Healey: Although we are conscious of the potential of the duty rate cuts for farming and non-food crops and support diversification across government in other ways, the incentives for biofuels are not targeted at supporting farmers or subsidising agricultural production. I offer the hon. Gentleman a word of caution: if we introduce these biofuel duty discounts too fast or they are too large, we will increase the incentive to import biofuels, decrease the prospects of our own UK-based production industry growing and increase the risk that farmers in countries other than our own will benefit.

Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite all he has said, changes are taking place with regard to the widening of the European Union and the common agricultural policy, and will he assure me that we will keep the policy in mind so that we can make it possible for people to continue to grow biofuels in a sensible way?

John Healey: As with all taxation, we monitor the issue very carefully and we are prepared to review the appropriate rate, particularly if new evidence and analyses are presented to us.

Tax Credits

Andrew Selous: If he will make a statement on the administration of tax credits.

Dawn Primarolo: I can confirm that tax credits are now being paid to 3.8 million families, in addition to the 1.3 million families with children on income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance who are receiving the increased levels of support now through their benefits. The Inland Revenue is deciding more than 100,000 cases a week on average. All the claims that are yet to be decided are incomplete or require further checks to verify information, or involve applications that have arrived at the Department in the past few weeks.

Andrew Selous: Will the Paymaster General ensure that those of my constituents who have incurred bank overdraft charges and mortgage interest penalties purely as a result of the non-arrival of tax credits on the dates when the Treasury was due to pay them are compensated? Given that she has made allegations that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said on the Floor of the House that he would scrap tax credits, will she give me the Hansard reference? She will no doubt be aware that, although the Opposition have considerable criticisms of the complexity and implementation of tax credits, we have at no point said that we would scrap them.

Dawn Primarolo: Clearly, it is difficult to comment on the specific cases that the hon. Gentleman raised with regard to compensation without all the details—something that we would not do on the Floor of the House. Each case will turn on its own facts, but the most important thing is to ensure, as he is encouraging me to, that families get the service to which they are entitled. Where the Inland Revenue was unable to deliver the level of service that might have been expected, I will certainly consider what action, if any, may be appropriate. With regard to the second question, I regret that I did not hear—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady need answer only one question.

Joan Humble: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents work on the tax credits helpline. Will she take this opportunity to thank them for the very hard work that they have put in to deliver this very important new tax credit? Will she also acknowledge that many of those staff throughout the country need continuing support? They need support from their management and appropriate training, and access to the computer systems to get the information that they need to answer the questions asked by the people who are ringing them up.

Dawn Primarolo: I am more than happy to congratulate on the Floor of the House the staff of the Inland Revenue, who have worked so splendidly to ensure the delivery of the new tax credits, at times under extreme pressure, with which we are all familiar. Families are desperate to get the money that they can see the Government are now prepared to pay to them through the new tax credits; many of them are getting it for the first time. My hon. Friend is right that the Department needs to ensure that it provides proper training—which it has done—and updates training to give support to those who are in the front line, both in the contact centres and the Inland Revenue inquiry centres, and who see members of the public face to face. That work will continue.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: May I ask the present Leader of the House if he will please give us the business for next week? [Laughter.]

John Reid: Very good.
	The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 16 June—Remaining stages of the Licensing Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 17 June—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on "A fair deal on tuition fees", followed by a debate on "A fair deal for community pharmacies". Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 18 June—Debate on "European Affairs" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 19 June—Estimates [3rd Allotted Day]. Subject to the approval of the House, there will be a debate on the conduct of investigations into past cases of abuse in children's homes, followed by a debate on the future of waste management. Details will be given in the Official Report.
	At 6 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Friday 20 June—Private Members Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 23 June—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced. Followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No 2) Bill.
	Tuesday 24 June—Remaining stages of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
	Wednesday 25 June—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 26 June—Motion to approve the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life "Standards of Conduct in the House of Commons".
	Friday 27 June—The House will not be sitting.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Can he tell us yet whether he will be with us next Thursday? We should all like to know that, given his well-known enthusiasm for his present job, not least his chairmanship of the Modernisation Committee.
	Is the Leader aware of early-day motions 1401,
	[That this House deplores the fact that the Labour honourable Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Falmouth and Cambourne, Erith and Thamesmead, West Bromwich West, West Ham, Rother Valley, Leeds West, Aberdeen South, Bootle, Kingswood, Leeds North West, Sheffield Attercliffe, Waveney, Birmingham Northfield, Cambridge, Blyth Valley, Wimbledon, Gower, Morley and Rothwell, Barnsley West and Penistone, Peterborough, Cynon Valley, Putney, Islington North, Tooting, Dagenham, Keighley, Coventry South, Workington, Crosby, Linlithgow, Bristol West, Caerphilly, Llanelli, Lancaster and Wyre, Burton, Gloucester, Cunninghame South, Stroud, Monmouth, Liverpool Riverside, Sunderland North, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Birkenhead, Newport West, Stevenage, Aberavon, Ilford South, Bridgend, Midlothian, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, Newcastle Upon Tyne North, Jarrow, Wirral West, Knowsley North and Sefton East, Doncaster North, Blackpool North and Fleetwood, Barnsley Central, Ogmore, Tamworth, Stafford, Liverpool Walton, Rugby and Kenilworth, South Dorset, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, Edinburgh North and Leith, Brighton Pavilion, Manchester Central, Wrexham, Dundee East, Western Isles, Birmingham Perry Barr, Amber Valley, Blackpool South, Medway, Glasgow Shettleston, Calder Valley, Hayes and Harlington, Glasgow Maryhill, Kingston upon Hull North, and Blaydon voted against the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition on post office card accounts on llth June, despite having supported the same motion when it was tabled by the honourable Member for Ochil as Early Day Motion 572; notes that had those honourable members voted for the motion then it would have been carried; calls on them to explain why they voted against a motion designed to protect the interests of vulnerable pensioners and benefit recipients and to save post offices; and condemns the Government for its dismissal of a motion which, as an Early Day Motion, secured the support of a clear majority of honourable Members of the House.]
	and 1403?
	Those early-day motions should be entitled "Dodgy, Devious Labour MPs", because they arise from the rather disgraceful episode in which a large number of Labour Members rushed to sign an early-day motion, then, when the Opposition tabled a motion with the same wording, voted against it. How are they going to explain that to their constituents, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps you should give them another opportunity next week to explain how they can first sign an early-day motion, then effectively vote against the same motion. Does the Leader of the House deprecate that behaviour, will he do anything to discourage it, and how will he explain it to the Members' constituents?
	Can we have a debate next week on the details and the consequences of the Chancellor's statement on the euro? It contained some intriguing and tantalising references, including:
	"interim reports on the step changes we need in the planning and supply of housing and on the market for long-term fixed-rate mortgages."
	It would be helpful to our constituents to know what the Chancellor had in mind on the supply of housing.
	Those few Labour Members left who are sponsored by trade unions must be interested in an urgent debate on the Chancellor's statement that
	"almost all pay remits for public sector bodies will include a regional or local pay dimension."
	I am sure that many Labour Members would want to participate in that debate to give the Chancellor a piece of their mind on the subject and act as legitimate spokesmen for their trade union sponsors.
	We should also explore the Chancellor's statement that
	"we will seek reform of the European Central Bank."
	How will the Chancellor explain himself if he gets no such reform? He made the typically bumptious assertion that,
	"we will continue to pursue successfully our objective of tax competition and reject tax harmonisation in Europe."—[Official Report, 9 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 414.]
	We wish him well with that, but I admire his over-confidence. It is important to give maximum time in the House next week to explore further the references in the Chancellor's statement. I am sure that he has worried many people about their housing, mortgages, pay and many other matters that he tells us are essential to get us in the right shape, as he perceives it, for a referendum on the euro.
	What is the status of the mental health Bill? It was published in draft more than a year ago and there were more than 2,000 responses to it. Most were from people who were anxious about its content. It has been suggested that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny of the measure. Will it be on the original Bill or the amended version after the earlier consultation? Can the Leader of the House guarantee adequate time not only to conduct the pre-legislative scrutiny, but between the end of that process and laying the Bill before the House?
	The Leader of the House and his predecessor placed much stress on pre-legislative scrutiny and we want it to work properly and well. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give us an absolute guarantee that, on a Bill as important and, so far, controversial as the mental health Bill, the process will be conducted properly, do justice to the measure and reassure those who take a close interest in it that Parliament will do a proper job on their behalf.

John Reid: We have not yet made a decision on the mental health Bill. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman said and we shall, of course, attempt to give as much time as possible to scrutiny of what is an important issue. I shall come back to him as soon as possible on that point.
	The right hon. Gentleman made speculative comments on the events of the day, about which most people have already been proved wrong. I shall not attempt to second-guess my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I merely say that, in my short time in the post, I have grown to love not only the job but Opposition Front-Bench Members. I look forward to being here for a long time, in the full knowledge that, as Professor Stephen Hawking reminds us, time is relative.
	I thank the right hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the early-day motion on Post Office accounts. The Government have been trying to give not only time but maximum flexibility while modernising Post Office accounts and services to consumers. The right hon. Gentleman referred to another failed Conservative initiative to try to embarrass the Government. He gets upset when others will not join in. I shall not deprecate any hon. Friends who are consistently loyal to the Government on all issues.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the euro. That is important, as is Europe. Clear dividing lines are forming, and he can rest assured that we want to allow as much time as possible for people to discern the difference between the approach to Europe of the Labour party and that of the Conservative party. I do not believe that any Labour Member could quite match some of the views that have been expressed in the Conservative party. As one hon. Member has said, there are millions of people in this country who are white, Anglo-Saxon and bigoted, and they need to be represented. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman recognises his own phrase on this matter. I do not think that the anti-foreign, anti-EU attitudes of people on the Labour Benches, however critical they might be, come anywhere near the xenophobia displayed on the Conservative Benches.
	Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman—rather like another charge of the Light Brigade—apparently seeks yet another debate on European matters. We look forward to every such occasion, and there will be one next Wednesday. I hope that it will be only the first during which we can discuss European affairs, the euro and the contrast between the Government's rather pragmatic approach of putting Britain's economic interest at the centre of our considerations, and the dogmatic approach that says, "Never, whatever the advantages to Britain", or the Liberal Democrat position of saying, "Yes, tomorrow, whatever the disadvantages." I believe that the British people prefer a flexible, thought-through approach to a dogmatic approach, on either side.

Paul Tyler: Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is not about to become Secretary of State for Health or Defence, or even Lord Chancellor, may I ask him to reflect for a few minutes on his role in the House and to make a statement on that matter as early as possible? Will he give urgent thought to the primary responsibility that his title and job description confer? It is not a responsibility to the Government, to the Cabinet or even—dare I say this today?—to the Prime Minister; it is to the House.
	Will the Leader of the House look into two matters of current concern? First, is it not extraordinary that the Prime Minister can dramatically change the geography—the structural architecture, if you like—of Whitehall without any reference to the House at all? We find major Departments of state changing their responsibilities with major implications for the way in which we can hold such Departments to account. Would it not be right for the appropriate Select Committee to have before it any new Secretary of State as soon as they were appointed, so that it could investigate whether its remit and objectives had changed? Is it not critical for the work of the House, of which the right hon. Gentleman is the representative, that we should be able to hold to account the Departments of state?
	Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) yesterday, the Prime Minister said that "convention" and precedent dictated that he and Alastair Campbell could not come before a Committee of the House to explain what information had been given to the House on the war with Iraq. In the very same breath, however, the Prime Minister said that he had broken with precedent—quite creditably; I think we all welcome this fact—to come before the Liaison Committee. When is a precedent not a precedent for this Government? Why are this modernising Government not prepared to dispose of a precedent when it is in the interest of good government and accountability in the House to do so? Before he perhaps moves to pastures new, will the Leader of the House give some thought to these matters and give us a statement?

John Reid: Yes, indeed. I reflect on them constantly. The first time I came to the Dispatch Box in this capacity, I tried to give the House a rough rule of thumb as to what I thought was the role of the Leader of the House. It was partly to be the Government's man in the House, because I am a Cabinet Minister, but also to be the House's man in the Government and to try to protect the rights of Parliament as a whole, irrespective of party, in terms of its balance and its scrutiny of the Executive.
	The hon. Gentleman raised two specific points. The first related to the role of the Prime Minister in the restructuring of government. Everyone in the House, whatever their views on any particular piece of restructuring, would accept that the Prime Minister, as leader of the Executive of the country, has a grave responsibility to ensure the efficient conduct of Government business and of the Executive. In doing that, he has a role from which he cannot withdraw.
	Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman's second point was that the Prime Minister had been prepared, in a quite unprecedented fashion, to introduce efforts on the part of the leader of this country, the Prime Minister, to explain and to be accountable to the House. Specifically, I am thinking of issues such as the introduction of debates on Iraq and the war, and his attendance before the Liaison Committee. That, of course, is complemented by his efforts to make himself even more scrutinised and accountable outside the House through the on-the-record Lobby briefings that he has done, sometimes for an hour or two hours. The one thing that cannot be said of the Prime Minister is that he has been reluctant to hold himself up for scrutiny and accountability.
	I do not have much to add on the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, except that the Prime Minister has obviously already appeared before the Intelligence and Security Committee. I am sure that the more these matters are looked into, the more it will be seen that the allegation that there was some form of deceit involved here is completely and utterly untrue. I suppose that I had better answer the question, "When is a precedent not a precedent?" When it is done for the second time.

Gerald Kaufman: As my right hon. Friend did not mention it in his statement of the business for the next two weeks, will he now give me a categorical assurance that the remaining stages of the Hunting Bill will be taken before the summer recess? Will he accept it from me that those of us who have gone into the Lobby to support the Government on contentious issues that were not in the Labour party election manifesto will not accept a Government failure to complete fulfilment of this manifesto commitment?

John Reid: Obviously, I pay great attention to what my right hon. Friend says, as I did yesterday, incidentally, when he raised the matter in another forum. Today, I have announced the detailed and specific business for the next two weeks. I cannot give a guarantee on detailed and specific business beyond that, but I can assure him that the points he has raised are not ones that I or others in the Government have missed.

Graham Brady: At the time of independence for Zimbabwe, a clear pledge was given in the constitution of that country that public service pensions would be honoured. Many Members have constituents who are Zimbabwe public service pensioners. They have been put in a position of extreme difficulty, because the Government of Zimbabwe have suspended payment of those pensions. Can we have an urgent debate on the plight of those pensioners and, in particular, a Government response as to why we are continuing to pay international development funds to Zimbabwe when that country is depriving our constituents of their income?

John Reid: I am aware of the general problem that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I do not know of the specific measures that have been taken on it. This matter is important not only to the potential beneficiaries of such payments, but as a general principle. I shall certainly see that it is brought to the attention of the relevant Minister.

Kali Mountford: Could it be that the night mail will no longer bring
	"Letters for the rich, letters for the poor,
	The shop at the corner, the girl next door."?
	Given that the Strategic Rail Authority has a specific duty to promote the carriage of freight by rail, can the House have an early opportunity to debate Royal Mail's decision to switch from rail to road?

John Reid: I have some sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend makes, largely because my father was a sorter—a PHG, or postman higher grade, to be precise. I take the view that some of those things would have been better left unchanged. Nevertheless, the Government have made the commitment that we will allow the Post Office maximum freedom for its operational business. While I regret that, we have to stand by the decision.

Henry Bellingham: I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), because the Rhodesian police pension of my constituent, Reg Vincent, is now worth nothing. May I ask the Leader of the House to consider the recent visit of the Catholic Bishop of Bulawayo, Pius Ncube? When he visited the United States, he met Mr. Secretary Colin Powell; when he came to this country the other day, he was first stood up for a meeting by Baroness Amos and then ended up meeting Liz Lloyd from the No. 10 policy unit. Surely that says a lot about the Government's attitude to Zimbabwe.

John Reid: I do not think there is a great deal of difference between the hon. Gentleman's and my views on some of what is going on in Zimbabwe. As for the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has raised, I understand that it was discussed at some length during Foreign Office questions 48 hours ago, and I do not intend to cut across the answers given then.

Judy Mallaber: Has my right hon. Friend been given notice of a statement to be made next week on a consultation document on domestic violence? When draft legislation is produced, will it be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee?

John Reid: As the matter my hon. Friend has raised is still under discussion, I cannot specify a day next week. That in no way diminishes the importance of a subject which, as my hon. Friend knows, has been at the centre of a great deal of what the Government have done over the past few years. I am not in a position to reveal any detailed scrutiny plans that we have, but last year's modernisation plans committed us to increasing the number of Bills that are subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. I think there were four during the last Session, and that number will be increased considerably in the next Session.

Roger Gale: The modernised sitting hours have effectively meant that on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays only London Members' constituents can arrive at the House in time for a tour before sittings begin. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will be concerned to know that tours to take place on Mondays, the only days on which the House does not sit in the morning, are now being booked six months ahead. Many Members appear to be taking advantage of their ability to book tours far in advance to secure bookings for constituents—particularly those from London, oddly enough. That means that many Members no longer have an opportunity to invite their constituents to visit the House.
	First, will the Leader of the House investigate this? Secondly, will he consider applying the same sort of allocation scheme that is applied to tickets for Prime Minister's Question Time? Thirdly, will he come back to the House and allow us to revisit the whole issue?

John Reid: I will act on the hon. Gentleman's first two requests. I am not aware of the details, but I will investigate the matter and, perhaps, write to the hon. Gentleman. As for his third, general point, I am well aware of the strong feelings that exist on all sides. I am also aware that when a change like this takes place it gives rise to a number of practical difficulties, in relation to Select Committees—some Committee Chairmen have brought those difficulties to my attention—and in relation to the visits mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We should first consider whether the difficulties are insurmountable, or cannot be surmounted without considerable inconvenience. Then, after a reasonable amount of time—I do not think it can be done in the near future—we should establish whether, in view of the difficulties, the House has changed its mind.

Iain Luke: My right hon. Friend may be aware of early-day motions 1296,
	[That this House is deeply concerned by recent reports of the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi by the Burmese Military Junta in Rangoon; and calls on the Government to lead the international community in redoubling its efforts to stop the Burmese regime's human rights abuses, to do more to assist Burmese refugees and to seek the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi],
	1311.
	The motions, signed by 259 Members from all parts of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom, express concern about the taking into protective custody of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma. I know that our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has invited the Burmese ambassador to the Foreign Office, and we in the all-party Burma group are trying to arrange a visit to the ambassador to express parliamentarians' concerns.
	Given the atrocious record of the military junta in Burma, the extensive cultivation of drugs to raise finance and the continued presence of British companies such as BAT in Burma, will my right hon. Friend either arrange an emergency debate or arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on a matter that is of grave concern to many Members?

John Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments, which I will not repeat because he expressed them as eloquently as I could have done. We do condemn those grave offences. The Government are very sympathetic to early-day motion 1296; we fully support the call for the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi, and condemn the continuing human rights abuses in Burma. We seek every opportunity to draw attention to those abuses, not least during foreign affairs debates and Foreign Office questions, which took place yesterday. My hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to raise the issue again today, and I will encourage others to do so on every possible occasion.

Pete Wishart: May we have an early debate about the House's role in the ill-fated Scottish Parliament Holyrood building project? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was this House that signed the contract, it was this House that chose the wrong site, it was this House that commissioned the architect and chose the design, and it was this House that established an open-ended project with no cost-control management whatever. May we have a debate to find out why those decisions were made, and who is ultimately responsible for this shambles?

John Reid: It had slipped my notice that it was all our fault. I suppose that as there are more English than Scottish Members present, we can blame them.
	On any other occasion, the hon. Gentleman would be quite properly telling us to keep our nose out of the Scottish Parliament's affairs. The whole point of devolution is passing down the ability to make decisions, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman supported that. It seems that he supports it only when no one has to take any responsibility for their own actions. That is not in the Scottish national character: we face up to our own problems.

Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on housing? The euro support paper published on Monday proposes profound changes in the housing market, involving house price stabilisation—which will be welcome in my constituency—and interest rate stabilisation, which would mean that those who currently pay enormous sums in interest would not experience the massive increases and the misery that they suffered under the last Government.

John Reid: That is an important issue. It would probably be appropriate to raise many aspects of it during a forthcoming Westminster Hall debate on affordable housing.

Douglas Hogg: May I return the Leader of the House to a remark that he made about 10 days ago, to the effect that there was an element in the security services seeking to undermine the elected Government? Assuming that the remark was made in good faith, and assuming that there was evidence to support it, it is a very serious allegation. It amounts to saying that this elected Government were being suborned by unelected officials. That being so, may we have an early debate so that the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House what his evidence was and we can discuss what we should do about it?

John Reid: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not present for last week's business questions, when we dealt with this matter in some depth. I have nothing to add to what was said then, other than to correct, yet again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's misapprehension, and the misrepresentation he is making, that I alleged that the security services were undermining the Government. What I alleged was that one or two individuals were undermining their own leadership and the intelligence and security services themselves. In other words, I was defending the security services against the calumnies that were being spread and the impugning of their own propriety with the suggestion that they were involved in acts of deception. I was on the side of the intelligence and security services; it was not the other way around.

Jane Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the activities of the militant tendency in the Church of England? He will know that it is currently campaigning to overturn the appointment, carried out duly and legitimately, of Canon Jeffrey John as the next Bishop of Reading.

John Reid: I am afraid that my enforcement credentials do not extend to the theological sphere, but I note the point that my hon. Friend has made. I am informed that it is a serious point, not a trivial one. There are occasions on which matters relating to the Church of England can be raised here, and I hope that my hon. Friend will use those opportunities, but I know she will accept that it would not be propitious or proper for me to express a view on such matters.

Andrew MacKay: I wonder whether the Leader of the House has taken on board your comments yesterday, Mr. Speaker:
	"I would prefer it if, on Opposition Supply days, we do not have Government statements."—[Official Report, 11 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 701.]
	Does the Leader of the House agree that the statement yesterday on pension funds was very important but that it was not time-sensitive and that it was wrong to have it on an Opposition Supply day? Can we have an assurance that, next week and in future weeks, when there will be more Opposition Supply days, except in extreme and emergency circumstances, no statements will eat into our time?

John Reid: In general, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I ask him to accept that we try to do that. Yesterday, there was an important statement on pensions. Its importance was exhibited by the fact that the time was elongated by the participation of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Let explain and give some background. We were under pressure to make a second statement yesterday. I will not go into the details, but we were also under pressure informally from some Conservative Members to make a statement on the deployment of British forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I insisted, and my colleagues agreed, that we did not have a second statement, precisely for the reason that it was an Opposition day.
	I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept in good faith that we do not do that intentionally. We try to avoid it wherever possible. Like anyone else, we can get things wrong. We must try to balance the proper demands from the Opposition for scrutiny of important decisions such as that on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the statement on which will be made today, and, at the same time, the Opposition's right to put forward their views in Opposition day debates.

Louise Ellman: In view of the tragic events unfolding in the middle east, where it appears that Hamas is successfully derailing the peace process, will the Leader of the House consider arranging an urgent debate on the activities of Hamas in this country, the activities of leading members of Hamas in the Muslim Association of Britain and the activities of Azam Tamimi? Will my right hon. Friend consider that in the light of the possibility that such people may be attempting to recruit British citizens to become suicide bombers in Israel and in Palestine, and in view of the fact that those same people have called the suicide bombers martyrs?

John Reid: First, my hon. Friend represents the views of the whole House when she refers to the tragic loss of life in the middle east over the past 24 hours. It is a vicious circle of tragedy. It would be a double tragedy if we allowed those who wish to destroy the present peace initiative through such acts of terrorism to have their way. That leads me to the second point, which is on the activities in this country of people who are allegedly connected with terrorist organisations or encouraging terrorist activity. I will not make any specific comment on any specific case, but the Home Secretary, politicians as a whole and our intelligence services are very well aware of the need for co-ordinated appraisal of and intelligence on such matters. All hon. Members appreciate the need for that.

George Young: Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the Hunting Bill, over the next week or two, the Leader of House will be finalising the shape of next year's legislative programme. Against the background of the shambles this year, with unprecedented delays between the Committee stage and Report stage of Bills, with some Bills at short notice being zoned for carry-over, and with unprecedented programme motions curtailing discussion, will he urge restraint on his colleagues and ensure that next year's legislative programme is of a manageable size?

John Reid: Working backwards, I hope that I can make the legislative programme of a manageable size. There is always a combination between the importance and priority of getting business through, giving it adequate scrutiny and managing it well. I hope that the level of difficulty we have had with a crowded programme has not been unprecedented. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman can think of previous years under previous Governments when there were such difficulties; but we are bringing in new methods. Some of them are unprecedented, including carry-over and pre-legislative scrutiny on such a scale. That brings difficulties. Part of my job is to make my life easier by making next year's programme manageable in size as well as content.

Jim Sheridan: With the possible exception of you, Mr. Speaker, and my right hon. Friend, very few with influence in the House or indeed the senior circles of Government can proudly say that they have been through the university of industrial life. May I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to use his good offices to remind those in positions of power that people born with a screwdriver in their hand are of equal value to the country's prosperity, and that their views should be accurately reflected in the House and in the senior positions of our political structures? After all, many in our society have claimed to be under-represented and have subsequently been recognised. There is a general perception among the general public that the academics have taken over the asylum.

John Reid: I admire the gusto with which my hon. Friend defends the position, which he has done for many years. I thought at the beginning of his remarks that a timely reshuffle bid was being made but, as he knows, I agree with him. I attempt to maintain that tradition, although devious and mischievous forces are at work even now, trying to pretend than I am posher than the Queen, if what I read in the Sunday Times last week is to be believed. That came as a surprise to me. I understand, although I should not reveal it, that it came as something of a surprise to her Gracious Majesty, too. I agree entirely with the points that my hon. Friend has made.

Michael Fabricant: I advise the Leader of the House never to read the newspapers.
	At a time when the national health service is building a new hospital in Lichfield that has fewer facilities than we currently enjoy, may I express my personal regret at the departure of the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) from his position as Secretary of State for Health? Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that he realised that structural change is needed in the NHS. May I ask that, at some time, a debate be held on foundation hospitals and their future?

John Reid: On the last point, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be time for that and I look forward to it. I thank him for his comments. They are courteous and in character. I agree entirely. It was with deep regret that I found out that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) decided to resign from Government. It is shocking in the short term, but I believe that in the long term it will be seen to be a correct judgment on his part. There are many reasons, had he given me them, that I would have argued ferociously against, but the choice of his family over his future career does not cause me to argue against him. I thank the hon. Gentleman.
	Whatever difficulties remain, and there are great challenges in the health service, the fact that there are some 50,000 more nurses and 10,000 more doctors is testimony to the work that my right hon. Friend put into the health service. In the same gracious way as the hon. Gentleman thanked and paid tribute to my right hon. Friend, I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday on behalf of the whole House.

Tony Lloyd: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to the collapse of the Accident Group, a company that had its headquarters in my constituency and that employed and has now sacked 2,500 people nationwide? Inevitably, major issues arise from that. Employees were not paid. The claims of many people are still lodged with the company. There is uncertainty about where those claims stand. Many of the claimants are poor and seeking just compensation.
	Will my right hon. Friend arrange for Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions to seize themselves of the urgency of this matter, so that we can have an early statement on the investigation into the company. I allege no fraud because I know of no evidence, but can we have a guarantee that, if the company went out of business because of a lack of activity by the directors, they will be brought to account?

John Reid: I think we were all shocked by the scale and abruptness of the events to which my hon. Friend refers. There are provisions to make certain payments to ex-employees when businesses fail, and my understanding is that officials from the DTI have been in contact with the administrators to find out about the events surrounding their appointment on 30 May. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Martin Smyth: May I follow the reference by the shadow Leader of the House to a mental health Bill? The Leader of the House will be aware that for some time we have been seeking to amend the mental health regulations in Northern Ireland. Would it be possible for them to be subsumed into the main legislation? Will he discuss that with his colleagues, because some of us are concerned about the conditions and care of those with learning difficulties, and that needs to be looked at?

John Reid: Obviously the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to give a definite yes today, but I undertake to discuss the matter with my colleagues.

Margaret Moran: On Saturday, thousands of Luton Town football club supporters crowded into the ground to express their extreme anger, which I share, at the secrecy surrounding the sale of the club and its future. I congratulate the fans on the unprecedented move of setting up a supporters trust. Can we have an early debate on the appalling lack of accountability and powers to ensure that football clubs, which are community assets, are protected from, variously, egos, asset strippers and dodgy dealers?

John Reid: I know how passionately my hon. Friend feels about this, and it has happened in a number of areas, including that of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). That is one of the reasons why the Government have set up Supporters Direct, which can help supporters in this situation. Perhaps the issue is an appropriate one for an Adjournment debate; I am sure that it would be of widespread interest. It only remains for me to wish Luton Town supporters and the club well for the future.

David Heath: Is it possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for a debate on the process of call-out for reserve forces? I have a constituent who is a member of the Royal Naval Reserve, and has indeed fought for his country on two occasions, who is deeply concerned about the process of call-out for the Iraq conflict. Under section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that
	"it appears to him that warlike operations are in preparation or progress".
	My constituent believes that there should be a parliamentary debate on the issue, and I agree.

John Reid: Continual discussions and debates on military call-up have been held on the Floor of the House, specifically in relation to Iraq, but there are further opportunities for them—indeed, the hon. Gentleman has such an opportunity almost immediately, because I noticed, marching in step towards us as I was speaking, almost in anticipation of his temerity in raising such a point, two colleagues from the Ministry of Defence. I am sure that if he raises the matter, they will deal with it in their usual delicate and emollient way.

Gwyn Prosser: This year sees the 15th anniversary of the P&O ferry strike in Dover, which resulted in 2,000 seafarers being sacked, simply for campaigning for safe work practices on the channel—something that would not happen under Labour's new reformed trade union law. Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 100 Members have subscribed to my early-day motion fighting for justice for those sacked workers, many of whom are still out of work and have been blackballed for all those years; and will he find time for a debate on this important subject?

John Reid: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I know that he has been a doughty fighter for working people on a whole range of issues. I cannot promise him a specific debate on the Floor of the House, but there is a whole range of opportunities to raise such important matters. The framework of legality within which trade unions now work has been considerably strengthened since this Government came to power. I am sure that my hon. Friend has the ingenuity to find ways of raising the matter on numerous occasions.

John Bercow: Further to the timely inquiries of my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), may I beseech the Leader of the House to find time next week for a debate on the desperate and deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe? Given the appalling effects of the land-grab policy, the grotesque denial of human rights, the severe financial losses that individual citizens have suffered and the fact, which is of great importance in this context, that we provide substantial international development assistance for worthy projects in Zimbabwe, does he agree that it is time that we had a debate to highlight the fact that President Mugabe—that murderous thug—is a pariah in the international community, and to underline the importance of his either mending his ways or walking the plank, in the interests of his own people?

John Reid: Forceful and robust though the hon. Gentleman's words were, I think they will strike a chord with people throughout the House. The feelings and criticisms that he expressed are entirely legitimate. Of course I will draw them to the attention of colleagues in both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. I cannot promise that there will be an immediate debate on that one subject, but there are regular opportunities to raise it on the Floor of the House. I know that, with his skills of advocacy, he will ensure that those ways are found.

Stephen McCabe: My right hon. Friend will be aware that this is carers week. Does he agree that this is a good opportunity for us to acknowledge our debt to millions of carers throughout the country and to reflect on the long hours that they devote, for little or no pay, and often in addition to a full-time job, to caring for others? Is this not a good time to reflect on the support that they need and the help that we can give them in the wonderful work that they do?

John Reid: I endorse that without hesitation. There are 6.5 million such people throughout the country, who, unheralded and unsung, do an immense amount of good work. My hon. Friend mentioned carers week, which is a national annual event run by Carers UK and other groups—Contact a Family, Crossroads and the Princess Royal Trust for Carers. Its aim is to raise awareness of carers' contribution. It is doubtful whether we can ever reward them enough, but my hon. Friend will be aware that we have, for example, raised the carer premium in income-related benefits from just over £14 a week to more than £25 from April 2003. That shows the importance that the Government attach to the work of carers.

Gregory Barker: Now that the dust has settled on the right hon. Gentleman's comments last week about rogue elements in the security forces, will he be very kind and give a clear answer to the question that I asked him last week, which is, simply: have the security services launched an internal leak inquiry, what are its terms of reference, who is undertaking it, when is it expected to report, does he expect disciplinary action to ensue, and, most importantly, will he make the conclusions available to the House? A clear answer, please.

John Reid: The hon. Gentleman got upset, as did one of his favourite columnists last week, because he did not think that I gave him a clear answer. He may not know this from experience, but the intelligence services do not always come along to the House with a report on everything that they are doing. Secondly, if they did, they would do it through either the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary, or the Ministry of Defence, depending on which intelligence service we are dealing with. Thirdly, I answered the point about the allegations earlier on. My criticism was of those who were claiming that, on the basis of their sources, which they claim—

Eric Forth: Who are they?

John Reid: I do not know who they are. The whole problem is anonymous, uncorroborated reports impugning our security services. I said last week and I say again that, when we get uncorroborated, anonymous and misrepresentative stories impugning our intelligence services, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be on my side of the fence attacking them, rather than constantly trying to make party political mischief.

Tom Harris: Further to the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), I respect and understand the answer that my right hon. Friend gave: that Royal Mail's decision was of a commercial nature and that the Government cannot and should not get involved in it. However, Royal Mail has indicated that it may return to using rail freight at some point in the future. Unfortunately, EWS, the rail freight company responsible for delivering this service, has surrendered the train path needed to provide it. Can my right hon. Friend commit himself to having a debate in the House which the Secretary of State for Transport could attend, explaining what pressure he—or she—could exert on Network Rail to ensure that these train paths are reinstated if and when necessary?

John Reid: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to raise this issue either in an Adjournment debate or during Transport questions, which I believe will be held next week. I cannot respond in detail, other than to say that, in terms of an objective and making it a reality, the Government have had some success in transferring freight from road to rail. Anything that tends to shift it back would be deleterious not only for the Government but for the millions of motorists in this country who are trying to travel a little more freely on our roads.

Bill Wiggin: I hope that the Leader of the House will take this opportunity to set the record straight in respect of Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions of a couple of days ago. It was Professor Welshman Ncube, the secretary-general of the Movement for Democratic Change, who was discussed, not Bishop Pious Ncumbe, who is the Bishop of Bulawayo. I hope that the Leader of the House will therefore look much more seriously into the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), and hold the debate on Zimbabwe that is so badly needed.

John Reid: The answer to both points is yes. I will take this issue seriously, and I stand corrected if the hon. Gentleman feels that I have mistaken the subject under discussion; however, I think the general matter was fairly close to the point that was raised.

Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend share my horror at figures released by the International Labour Organisation—on this, the world day against child labour—suggesting that 1.2 million children are being trafficked into labour across the world: in mines, in conflict zones as soldiers, and, indeed, into the sex trade? Does he agree with me that the House should take the opportunity to have an early debate on this subject?

John Reid: I do agree that the protection and enhancement of children's lives is of the highest priority; indeed, I find it hard to think of any other subject that should be a greater priority for us. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are committed to helping to eliminate child labour, particularly in its worst forms, such as child slavery. The Department for International Development is supporting an entire range of programmes aimed at eliminating child labour in a number of countries. And international programmes are being assisted, such as UNICEF's work on the rehabilitation of child soldiers, and the ILO programme for the elimination of child labour. I thank my hon. Friend, on behalf of the whole House, for raising an issue that should not separate us in party terms.

Andrew Mitchell: In view of the current concern about and interest in European affairs, and of the immense concern that is being expressed about European Community directive 2000/68/EC, will the Leader of the House give consideration to a debate on subsidiarity? The directive states that by the end of 2003, every horse must have a passport. Although no photograph is required on these passports, the markings must be identified in English and in French, and the form must be completed in either red or black ink only.
	The forms will cost between £20 and £30 per horse, and one can imagine the immense damage that that will do to riding schools in constituencies throughout the country. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate, so that we can bring greater public attention to this ridiculous measure, which is causing significant concern in the horsey community?

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue—as the wider horsey community will undoubtedly do when they discover that he has done so. Not being a member of the horsey community, I am not familiar with the details, but I will try to acquaint myself with them. However, I take the point that we must always be careful that there is no unwarranted interference and unwelcome legislative intervention at a European level. That is why I was surprised to read certain comments on the Conservative website, which I bring to the hon. Gentleman's attention. The Conservatives' simplified alternative convention and treaty is being prepared by Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, MEP. The website also says that
	"Timothy has put together his amendments and drawn on his discussions with colleagues in the European Parliament"—
	Conservative ones, that is. Under article 1-19 of that alternative treaty is included the astounding opening sentence:
	"The European Parliament shall, jointly with the Council, enact legislation".
	I did not know that this was the Conservative party's policy until I read that. [Interruption.] To judge by the look on the hon. Gentleman's face, I suspect that he did not, either. However, the website does make interesting reading.

Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend read early-day motion 1160, on legal professional privilege? It states:
	[That this House is concerned that Government Ministers invariably seek to withhold legal advice received within their Department or from Treasury Counsel under the blanket of the provisions for legal professional privilege, even in instances where the drafted legislation or regulations are designed to protect the public from unfair treatment; believes that the ending of the use of legal professional privilege over measures intended to protect the public interest would facilitate the fuller understanding of the implications of legislative and regulatory proposals so that more relevant amendments could be tabled; and further believes that such an approach would be in keeping with the general intentions of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the code of practice on access to Government information.]
	Legal professional privilege is used by Government Departments to refuse to provide legal advice that they have received from Treasury counsel and others. That is done even when the legislation concerned involves protection of the public. Would it not be in keeping with data protection and freedom of information legislation, and the code of practice on access to Government information, for this advice to be made much more readily available?
	May we have a debate on this matter, which would enable me to discuss a case that I have been dealing with for some time? The Department of Trade and Industry persistently refuses to give information on the non-use of the trading schemes exclusion regulations in respect of Chem-Dry, which imposed barriers in respect the operation of its franchisees. It is clear that the DTI should have taken action and prosecuted, and it is very important to my constituents that they be aware of the legal advice provided.

John Reid: As my hon. Friend has illustrated, this is a very complex issue. However, my understanding is that once the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is in force, although correspondence covered by legal professional privilege will continue to be exempt, decisions on its disclosure will be covered by the public interest test and be subject to the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner. So the issue is not as black and white as perhaps some commentators have led us to believe. I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I am afraid that I cannot comment on the specifics of this case. I know that he is a dogged and determined pursuer of his constituency interests, and that he will continue to raise this case on every possible occasion.

Roy Beggs: A multi-million pound construction and engineering project in my constituency has just been completed. The main contractor was a European firm that submitted the lowest tender. It has gone, but many small businesses and sub-contractors in my constituency that supplied services and carried out work for this company have not been paid in recent months. May we have a debate on this issue in the House, and seek legislative change to give protection to all sub-contractors? In particular, we should consider this issue in terms of our responsibility when public money is being spent.

John Reid: Obviously, I am not familiar with the details of this case, but I am sure that it is an important one. I know that, like my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), the hon. Gentleman assiduously follows his constituents' interests—and, indeed, the wider interests of Northern Ireland. If he would like to write to me, I shall try to pass the information on to my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, or to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Indeed, I shall do what I can in the coming days. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing everyone next week.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Adam Ingram: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on a British contribution to a multinational force for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I advise the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is attending a NATO Defence Ministers' meeting in Brussels, which is why he is unable to present the statement today.
	The House will be aware of the serious situation in the Ituri province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly in and around the town of Bunia. There has been a resurgence of fighting, particularly between Hema and Lendu militia, and tens of thousands of people have fled from their homes. Some are in refugee camps around Bunia; others are scattered in the surrounding countryside. There is a risk that renewed violence and disease could lead to many deaths.
	The United Kingdom is wholly committed to supporting the United Nations peacekeeping effort in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Ituri province and elsewhere, good work has been done, but UN troops are faced with a new situation, which they do not have sufficient numbers to deal with. Recognising that, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan requested the creation of a multinational force to stabilise Bunia. UN Security Council resolution 1484, passed on 30 May, provides the mandate for the force, and on 5 June, the EU decided that the operation would be under European security and defence policy auspices.
	As framework nation, France will provide the military commander and the majority of the force. Several EU member states and some non-EU nations are likely to contribute. We expect the Council of Ministers to agree today formally to launch the operation—the first EU-led operation outside Europe.
	I can now tell the House how the UK intends to contribute to this EU-led force. We have offered to provide an engineer detachment and Hercules transport aircraft to help deploy the multinational force. The exact numbers of personnel needed will not be known until we have completed further detailed analysis of the engineering tasks required in Bunia. Bearing in mind the importance of co-ordination between the United Nations and the multinational force, and to assist with planning, we will also provide five staff officers to the force headquarters and a liaison officer to work with the UN.
	I know that many right hon. and hon. Members are concerned that our armed forces have too many commitments. I understand that concern, but I can assure the House that this is a modest, realistic and sustainable deployment. In making the commitment, we are clear that there can be no military solution to the problems in the region. The multinational force is an interim measure, deployed to help the UN with a limited and short-term mandate and will begin to withdraw when UN reinforcements arrive later in the summer.
	We hope that this force will help stabilise Ituri province and that it will assist the wider discussions in Kinshasa on the establishment of a transitional national Government. We call on all parties in Ituri, Kinshasa and the surrounding region to play a full part in achieving peace and stability in the region. I am pleased that the EU has responded quickly and decisively to the situation in Bunia. It is exactly how we envisage the EU's security and defence policy developing—as the practical expression of a common foreign and security policy.
	The UK takes its commitments to global security seriously. The operation fits into our own and wider EU objectives in the region, including support to the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I trust that the House will recognise that, through that contribution, we are taking practical steps to help resolve a difficult situation. I commend the statement to the House.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. Before responding, I would like to correct the record. I do not believe that the Leader of the House deliberately misled the House, but we never insisted on having an oral statement "tomorrow." We were always perfectly happy about an oral statement today, but we believe that it is important that we should always have an oral statement, as a matter of principle, in respect of any new deployment into any new theatre. I am sure that the whole House would agree.
	Nobody could possibly object to the proposition that the Congo crisis is crying out for international intervention. That country that has been racked by tribal civil war and has been plundered for decades by neighbouring states for oil, gold and diamonds. We fully support intervention by the international community to stem the latest bloodshed. However, the conflict has claimed some 4 million lives since 1998 and the Minister has not explained what such a small intervention can truly achieve. What he did say is, "It is exactly how we envisage the EU's security and defence policy developing—as the practical expression of a common foreign and security policy." The deployment raises many questions about the assurances given to the House and to President Bush that NATO would always have first refusal over EU operations and would always be involved in the planning. Is this statement on the serious crisis in the Congo really the occasion to experiment with new and untried EU military structures and for the Minister to make political points about their highly controversial European security and defence policy? The crisis demands our best effort, because this small but complex operation may put at risk our servicemen's lives.
	Given the Government's commitment to NATO and NATO's proven and tested abilities to plan and command operations of this sort, the Minister should explain why we did not press for NATO to lead the operation, just as NATO is leading peacekeeping in Kabul without any direct US military involvement.
	A European security and defence policy operation is clearly more risky. The German former chief of NATO's military committee, General Klaus Naumann, has warned of the "casual approach of politicians", and that "soldiers risk dying" because of politicians' "ambitious decisions". Furthermore, a French military briefing paper obtained by The Guardian described the operation as
	"politically and militarily high risk; very sensitive and complex",
	but that has been ridiculed by an EU military planner who said:
	"This is the most cynical military briefing I've read in my entire life. Everybody is just laughing at it."
	Have the UK Government seen that paper, and what was their reaction?
	In order to allay any concern, can the Minister set out the military mission for the operation? He seemed keener to talk about the ESDP, but said nothing about the military mission. What are the benchmarks for its success, and what are the key risks? Realistically, what impact can 1,400 soldiers have in a country the size of Europe? How can a mere 1,400 soldiers avoid being overwhelmed by the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Bunia? What humanitarian aid will be available to support military operations there? What are the provisions for reinforcement, if necessary, and what are the means of extracting the force in an emergency?
	The French briefing paper is reported to confirm that the deployment will have negligible impact on the tribal conflict. Francois Grignon of the International Crisis Group has written:
	"This intervention is, on the face of it, totally insufficient to meet the needs of Ituri's pacification."
	Let nobody doubt Britain's concern for the people of the Congo and of the whole African continent, but I am sure that the Minister would agree that there is no point in hand-wringing gestures for ulterior political motives. Our armed forces have proved themselves in Africa time and again. There is no doubt that they will do an excellent job, whatever they are asked to do, and we certainly wish them well.

Adam Ingram: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's initial comments about full support for the intervention, but the thrust of his comments was that it would have been better done under NATO than under ESDP. Of course, NATO could have become involved if it had wished, but it did not. The ESDP process was then triggered. That was always envisaged when the process was set up.
	I take exception to the hon. Gentleman's comment that the very nature of the deployment would place additional risk on the lives of our personnel. There is not one shred of evidence for that and when the hon. Gentleman raises such scares, he has to recognise the possible impact on morale. It was a wholly unacceptable approach to adopt.
	The potential humanitarian crisis and other threats that may exist—such as people pouring in to safer areas or outbreaks of major diseases and pestilence—have all formed part of the force planning that has been undertaken, in recognition of the fact that it will be a small deployment. The hon. Gentleman asked under what mandate we act and what approach we will take. I suggest that he reads the UN Security Council resolution, which states that the Security Council:
	"Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations . . . Authorizes the deployment until 1 September 2003 of an Interim Emergency Multinational Force in Bunia, in close co-ordination with MONUC,"—
	which is still there and has been strengthened—
	"in particular its contingent currently deployed in the town, to contribute to the stabilization of the security conditions and the improvement of the humanitarian situation in Bunia, to ensure the protection of the airport, the internally displaced persons in the camps in Bunia and, if the situation requires it, to contribute to the safety of the civilian population, United Nations personnel and the humanitarian presence in the town . . . Stresses that this Interim Emergency Multinational Force is to be deployed on a strictly temporary basis to allow the Secretary-General to reinforce MONUC's presence in Bunia and in this regard, authorises the Secretary-General to deploy, within the overall authorised MONUC ceiling, a reinforced United Nations presence to Bunia, and requests him to do so by mid-August 2003."
	That is a very specific mandate for a specific time, laid down by the United Nations while it builds up its force to deal with all the other attendant problems. Our force is not going out there to deal with those problems. We are putting in place specific enabling capabilities to enable the force to be deployed.
	I hope that I have answered the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman. He is clearly concerned because the ESDP is involved, but that does not diminish the quality of the personnel who will be put in place. They will do a thorough and professional job, as they always do, no matter which flag they are doing it under.

Tam Dalyell: Albeit that the House is relatively empty, let us understand that this is a momentous statement. With trepidation and foreboding, I support the Government's actions. I was chosen by Mr. Speaker Weatherill as the leader of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Zaire in November 1990 and I just hope that Ministers understand the bitter tribal divisions in that place. We will be going into a morass, and it is not a place for a token force to achieve anything. The Minister says September and refers to strict dates. I hope he is right, but let us not mistake the momentous nature of what we are doing.

Adam Ingram: Not for one moment do the Government, or any other country involved, underestimate the scale of the problem, which is long-running and will not be easily resolved. That is why I said in my opening statement that a military solution is unlikely. We have to move forward on a range of fronts. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. In one sense, the decision is indeed momentous, because it shows a clear commitment in Europe to take on difficult tasks that we have been requested by the UN to address. We understand wholly the deep, bitter tribal divisions that exist, and that could fragment even further. The scene is constantly shifting, with supporters moving from faction to faction. The UN has to understand that, and it does. It has to tackle it, and it is trying. We will give it support in what it is trying to achieve.

Paul Keetch: I thank the Minster for advance warning of his announcement. We do not believe that today is the day to rehearse arguments about European integration. We welcome the positive response by the Government to the request for troops to be sent to the Congo, under EU authority. I am sure that it is with some discomfort that our armed forces face yet another commitment in the present circumstances, but the Minister is right to point out that the strategic defence review acknowledged that as a permanent member of the UN Security Council Britain has a responsibility to contribute to international peacekeeping missions.
	The shadow of Rwanda will fall over this mission. There is a need for many more troops than those on their way to the Congo. According to a leaked French military document—as the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said—the force will not be able to disarm the militia or stop the war, merely protect civilians. While it is right that we should not know the exact rules of engagement, can the Minister assure the House that they are sufficiently robust to protect our troops in the field, and the civilians in their care?
	What efforts are the Government making to convince other nations to contribute, both from within the EU and outside it? Will there be a reserve call-out associated with this deployment? Can we learn the lessons from Sierra Leone? Can we ensure that all personnel on their way to the region receive appropriate protection against diseases? Will the malaria prevention issued be the same as in Sierra Leone? As with Sierra Leone, we need to know what the exit strategy is—as the Father of the House said. The French have said they will commit only to 1 September, after which they will hand over command to the Bangladeshis. Do we leave with the French, or wait for the Bangladeshis?

Adam Ingram: We could leave in advance of that. When the recce has returned, it will define exactly what is required. We do not yet know the extent of the engineering requirements in the field, and other Departments and non-governmental organisations are there and may be able to undertake some of the tasks. The scale and scope of the operation has not been fully defined, other than that it will take place within a tight parameter. We could leave earlier, although the likelihood is that we will withdraw as the UN reinforcements enter the region.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of what we are doing. I was thrown a wee bit, because we usually get some confusion about whether to support a deployment from the Liberal Democrats—

Paul Keetch: Not so.

Adam Ingram: Well, I think of a recent conflict on which they tried to face both ways. They are now picking and choosing which parts of the world they wish the UK to become involved in, and yet at the same time they say that we have obligations under UN Security Council commitments to seek to do what we can to deal with those issues.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that there was a need for more troops. I do not know whether he is asking for more UK troops to become involved—

Paul Keetch: No.

Adam Ingram: Well, at least that is clear. I can give him assurances that, as I said in my statement—he had an advance copy of it—other EU and non-EU nations are being spoken to by the French, as the framework nation, to try to assemble a package.
	On the rules of engagement, the deployment of our personnel and of the multinational force will take place under chapter VII of the UN charter. The hon. Gentleman should understand precisely what that means. We do not discuss details of the rules of engagement, but our troops will be armed and will use their weapons for their own defence, if required.
	The Gentleman asked about the reserve call-out, and I can tell him that we have no plans in that regard. This important deployment will be small. The precise numbers have not yet been determined, so I see no need for a reserve call-out. However, the purpose of having reserves available is that they can be called out in certain circumstances, if there is a need to supplement the work of the regular forces in meeting the demands placed on us under the UN charter. No such call-out is planned on this occasion.

Tony Worthington: I welcome today's statement, which has been inevitable for many years. Like everyone else, I welcome it with apprehension because of the scale of the problem that exists.
	I have two points to make. First, there must be a fierce intensification of the diplomatic effort to prevent neighbouring states from interfering in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and to get their forces out of that country. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government are playing their part in that? Secondly, I suggest that my right hon. Friend read "A Nation Betrayed" by Linda Melvern, which deals with Rwanda. We must not betray the Congo in the same way that Rwanda was betrayed. Every member of the UN Security Council must play its part, which means an application of forces way beyond what is being talked about today.

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been very active in highlighting this issue. He takes a close interest in this and other parts of the world, and I know that he has been raising this issue over a considerable period of time. He asked for more military intervention and for more intensive diplomatic efforts. I assure him that the diplomatic effort is being intensified as a result of the assessment that a military solution is not the way forward. However, we must always take matters on a case-by-case basis. The UN approach to the issue has been carefully constructed, and we must recognise the primacy of the UN in the matter and accept its assessment. The UN has asked for support, and adopting the EU-led approach of the ESDP will give confidence in the interim period, ahead of what we hope will be a much more substantial presence on the ground through MONUC, the UN force in the area.
	I do not know how many troops my hon. Friend thinks should be involved, given the scale of the problem, but it would be a failure of our thought processes if we were to adopt a military approach to the matter. As he said, we must adopt a diplomatic approach. All our efforts, through the UN and through NGOs, must be aimed at finding the best solution. The problem is complex and has existed for some time. We are all aware of the terrible experience in Rwanda in 1994, and I do not think I need to read the book "A Nation Betrayed". All of us remember in some detail what went on at that time. Lessons have been learned, and I hope that we can find a solution on this occasion.

Douglas Hogg: Although I recognise that the deployment is a small one, does the Minister understand that many of us oppose it? Britain has no historical responsibility for the Congo, and our economic and political interests there are very small. As the Father of the House said, the risks involved in the deployment are very great. In those circumstances, does the Minister accept that the risks to British servicemen are such that we should not commit them in such a venture?

Adam Ingram: No, I do not. There is no question but that there is a risk attached whenever we deploy our armed forces. However, our forces know what they are being asked to do. They are professional, dedicated and highly trained people. On this particular occasion, they have a specific role within a specific and tight mandate that has a specific time frame. There is also a humanitarian element to the deployment. If we can solve this problem by means of EU and UN action, I am sure that the British people will be on our side, and British forces will have done a great job once again in the name of this country.

Tom Clarke: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and his clear declaration of the Government's logical and realistic response to an extremely serious problem.
	I turn now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington). Those of us who were part of an all-party group that had the privilege of visiting Rwanda towards the end of last year recall that the President of Rwanda warned that he would not hesitate to send troops into the Democratic Republic of the Congo if he perceived a threat to his country's borders. It would be absolutely wrong for Britain to stand by and watch a repeat of the genocide that has taken place in the region, especially when the UN has invited us to contribute and we have the support of the EU.
	Therefore, I again welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. In the circumstances, if it becomes necessary for the Government to add to Britain's contribution, we should not hesitate to do so.

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is another Member with a very close interest in this particular part of the world. I can tell him that the Government of Rwanda welcome this initiative, as do neighbouring states. All those countries are very keen to resolve the very deep problems in the area, as they realise that the problems could spill over their borders. That is why there is tremendous international support for the deployment, as my right hon. Friend's remarks have underlined.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister of State should hang his head in shame at this statement. We are making a token contribution to a token force that is going into a boiling cauldron of a situation. If the international community was even half serious about dealing with the matter, the deployment would involve a properly organised UN force with a properly organised UN mandate. What we have instead is a confusion that involves a multinational force sitting alongside UN forces. The forces involved are wholly inadequate for the confusion of tasks that have been set. Nothing that the Minister of State has said can disguise the fact that the deployment is simply a little gift from the Prime Minister to the President of France that will allow the EU to strut its stuff on a stage that it should not even contemplate. The sooner we can get out of this disastrous engagement, the better.

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is applying his usual judgment in coming to his conclusion—although he may change his mind tomorrow, as he has done in respect of other matters.
	I do not hang my head in shame about this. I think that we can hold our heads up in relation to the commitment that we are making. That commitment is being made on the basis of what we have been asked to do by the UN, which has identified a shortfall in its current force strength in that part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It has asked us to do something, and we have decided to do what we can. Our participation will be for a limited period. We recognise the dangers that exist, and we do not undertake the deployment lightly. All the matters involved have been properly assessed, and we have studied the rules of engagement to determine the basis on which our people will be deployed. We have also assessed the force protection that will be required when we deploy our personnel. If the hon. Gentleman thinks otherwise, he has not understood for one moment the way in which this Government—and previous Governments—arrive at conclusions when deploying forces. We do not make this deployment lightly, but we recognise that we have international commitments. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that those commitments must be understood and adhered to.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Minister will be gratified to know that Labour Members recognise that the role being taken by the Government is an honourable one. The crisis in the Congo has existed for many years and it has, alas, been too much ignored by the world community. I therefore welcome today's announcement.
	It is clear that the operation involves very limited numbers of personnel, as has already been noted. Opposition Members who have spoken about a force that could solve the problems in the Congo simply do not understand the politics, geography and nature of the conflict taking place in that enormous country.
	The real issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) earlier. We must be engaged diplomatically to make the military intervention worthwhile, and that means bringing pressure to bear on our friends in Uganda and Rwanda, who allowed the rape of the Congo by their own troops, and on President Mugabe in Zimbabwe—nowadays our less good friend. Intervention from other African countries must be brought to an end to allow the Congo to reconstruct itself. As my hon. Friend said, in the end, the solution cannot be only military.

Adam Ingram: I can add little to what my hon. Friend said. I recognise that he fully supports the gist and thrust of my statement and of my responses to other questions. I am grateful for his comments. He understands that the deployment is for a limited period, that it has a clear objective and that the wider objectives must be met by other means. There must be intensive efforts, not just from the UK alone but through multinational approaches; where people have influence on countries in the region every effort must be made to find the diplomatic solution that is required. It will not be easy and it will not happen quickly, but we must at least try.

Martin Smyth: As someone who has had friends working in the region for years, I share the concern expressed by the Father of the House; the Minister referred to 1998, but the situation has existed for a long time. How can we intensify diplomatic efforts when the problems have been going on for so long? In recent weeks, we have seen pictures in the papers and on television of French troops who can do nothing because they are not strong enough. Does the Minister agree that such pictures do not give us great hope that the force will be effective if it takes only a peacekeeping role? I should like to think that chapter VII gave us more facility for movement within the law.

Adam Ingram: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman examines what chapter VII is about; a different role is accorded to MONUC, the current force, which operates under chapter VI. The rules of engagement could be different under a different UN mandate.
	I cannot disguise the fact that the force is small. That is clearly the case. However, that is what the UN requested in the mandate under resolution 1484 and we are responding accordingly. We are a small part of a small multinational force, with a specific purpose for a short period.
	The hon. Gentleman asked how we could intensify the diplomatic effort. We shall do so in the usual way. We have to try to encourage people in the region to take on ownership of the problem, and we must have confidence in their ability to do so. We must help them with security reforms and other aspects so that they can deal with the threats that could knock them off course. We are making a major contribution to achieve those objectives, both through the UN and unilaterally through the Department for International Development and other means. We have a clear view about what is required in the region, but we need to encourage others to come along with us. We have shown that we can achieve progress elsewhere in the world and, hopefully, we can deliver that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Ann McKechin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the engagement of British forces and the international community in the area. As he is aware, the current mandate is restricted not only as to the length of time but as to the geographical area that the force will cover—a small area around the town of Bunia. In the past few weeks, 70 per cent. of the population has fled the town as a result of violence. This week, there have been reports of further violence in North Kivu. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the mandate of the MONUC forces, which will be reconsidered by the UN this month, should be extended to include the entire Ituri region and that their number should be strengthened so that they can adequately protect the population of the whole area and not just of Bunia itself?

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for the statement. She is right: the mandate restricts us to a small part of the DRC. As we know, the country is 10 times the size of the UK. It is extremely difficult to police such a sizeable area and to deploy troops as meaningfully as some people might want.
	On the future mandate for MONUC, the number of troops to be engaged, their role and the way in which they will deal with related problems beyond the immediate area and elsewhere in the DRC is a matter for the UN as the situation develops. We can move forward to achieve our objectives only when we have co-operation from other countries. We shall probably return to that issue in the future once the new mandate has been determined.

Elfyn Llwyd: Although we appreciate the wise and timely caveats of the Father of the House, we fully support the intervention. However, with hindsight, does the Minister not think that it was highly inappropriate and unwise for the Government to have sanctioned arms sales to all five combatants in the Congo less than two years ago?

Adam Ingram: An arms embargo has been in place since 1993 and new rules now apply on the sale of weapons to surrounding nations, which may or may not intervene. Tight rules apply and they are constantly under review. If any of those nations were able to contribute positively, or required weapons because they faced a threat to their borders or were working under the auspices of the UN or other African nations, they would need to be equipped.
	It would be nice if there was a simple solution, but there is not. The situation is complex and the scene is shifting all the time. If the hon. Gentleman has a simple solution, perhaps he would let me know and I shall certainly pass it on to those at the UN who are discussing the way forward. I do not think that his remedy would solve the existing problem.

David Drew: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend? The intervention is long overdue. Does he agree, however, that history shows that intervention, especially in Africa, is often too little, too late? What has happened to the proposal floated at the UN some years ago for a rapid reaction force to which developed countries and some developing countries would contribute? Such situations will always get worse unless there is early intervention. No one wants to put British troops at risk, but we need to recognise that we have both humanitarian and security obligations to take early and serious action to ensure that the combatants know where we stand.

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend makes some good points. However, the UN has identified a problem; it has asked for a rapid response, which has been given—albeit within a tight framework. That is the best assessment of what is required of the interim force in assisting the UN to build up to the larger scale force that it judges will be able to deal with some of the problems faced in Bunia—where we are sending our personnel—and the surrounding area.
	We cannot rewrite history. There is no point in saying that we can undo the mistakes of the past. We can only face up to the current reality and that is what we are trying to do. I repeat: the situation is complex and fraught with many dangers, but we are determined to assist in the best way that we possibly can.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye; shorter questions will allow me to call as many of them as possible.

Laurence Robertson: As a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union trip to Rwanda, ably led by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), may I say that we saw the results of the genocide in 1994? We literally walked through the skulls and bones of some of the people who were murdered during that genocide, which took place while the world looked on. Although I totally support sending a UN force to the area, for the reasons that I have given, it is important to remember that the situation is very complex. We ought to remember that the genocide in Rwanda was extended, unintentionally, by the French backing the wrong side.

Adam Ingram: We can all revisit history and find many lessons about what different countries, including our own, have done in the past. That is why I make the point that there are undoubtedly, lessons to be learned, but the scenario is different on this occasion. There may well be a threat of genocide, but it has not yet manifested itself. By acting as we have done, at the request of the UN, I hope that that threat can be dealt with, so that the problem is avoided, but there is no certainty in any of this. If such things happen, the world has to react accordingly to that new threat. The approach to this matter has been measured and focused. Decisions have been made on the best assessment that the type of results that we are looking for will be delivered to stabilise the situation and to allow the UN to move forward on the basis of that stability and deal with the key issues, so that the possible threat of genocide and all the other risks that flow from that can be avoided. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I am sure that he learned a lot on that visit.

Patrick Mercer: As a young officer, I was taught that any operation that starts without a crystal-clear mission is likely to start and probably end in chaos. May I bring the Minister back to one of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)? What is the military mission on which our soldiers are being sent?

Adam Ingram: I shall not reiterate the basis on which the multinational force has been put together. [Hon. Members: "What is the mission?"] I shall come to the mission precisely in a moment. In relation to the parameters of what we have been asked to do on the mission, a recce team is currently finding out the scale of the problem, so that we can then direct our resources at it. I indicated in an earlier answer that we have representatives of other non-governmental organisations as well as of other Departments out there who may be able to take on some of the engineering tasks, if they are so defined.
	There will be an engineering and airlift capability to allow the deployment of the force. To get the aircraft in, the airfield needs to be secured and made safe and workable. That is the basis of the mission; it does not extend beyond that. Our forces are not involved in peacekeeping duties and, therefore, they will not be engaged in the manner that some hon. Members fear. They will not be sucked into something else. Their mission will be precisely as I set out in my opening statement and as I have said in my answer now.

Hugh Robertson: The Minister mentioned in his statement that the force will help to stabilise Ituri province. If it is only mandated for self-defence at the moment, how will it effect that stabilisation?

Adam Ingram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that we are talking about a multinational force and the way in which it will carry out its role. The rules of engagement under chapter VII are very clear.

Bernard Jenkin: Answer the question.

Adam Ingram: I wish the hon. Gentleman would stop heckling every answer that I try to give. He has had his opportunity, and he will have other opportunities to respond.
	Of course the way in which the multinational force deals with the situation will be defined in the terms of the mission set out by the contributing nations, and its role, which comes under the chapter VII of the UN charter, will be precisely to stabilise that area, to ensure that there is a peaceful environment and to lower the temperature in the area. If there is conflict, that must be dealt with by those who have to meet those responsibilities and, of course, in the interim, that will be the multinational force.

Henry Bellingham: We have not had a clear mission statement, and I would rather trust the judgment of my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who were all Regular Army officers and know a great deal about such situations. In Sierra Leone, we committed troops on the ground and, in Zimbabwe, we had a British military advisory and training team. Unlike those areas, where Britain had a responsibility, both historical and current, there is no current or historical British interest in Congo. It is Francophone-zone country, so surely we should be looking to France and Belgium to shoulder responsibilities and to look after their own interests.

Adam Ingram: Increasingly, in dealing with matters of global security, small or large, international coalitions are put in place. This mission will be EU-led, with the French as the framework nation. The Belgians are already committed to it. Other EU nations have been asked to become involved and some, probably with less historical engagement in Africa than we have, are considering putting in support. Non-EU nations are doing the same. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that willingness to broaden the international approach to such issues, rather than seeing them as the problem of one nation or a simple, straightforward group of nations. This is about internationalising the solutions to such problems. That is what the UN was originally set up for and, of course, the European security and defence policy is now taking a small part of the ownership of that role.

Bill Wiggin: I lived and worked out in Beni and Bunia in the Kivu region in 1991, and I have the greatest reservations about this mission. The Father of the House was absolutely right when he mentioned that our troops will be exposed to malaria. In fact, it is probably the most virulent strain in the whole of Africa, particularly cerebral malaria, which I was unfortunate enough to catch out there. The people there are good people, and, to some extent, I welcome what the French and the Belgians are doing. Why are we not doing the same in Zimbabwe?

Adam Ingram: Well, that is an interesting development. Is the hon. Gentleman asking for military intervention in Zimbabwe?

Bill Wiggin: indicated assent.

Adam Ingram: Well, I really do find that surprising. The whole thrust of most of the questions and my responses to them has suggested that although there should be a military presence to try to stabilise the region, the long-term solution is diplomatic. That is precisely what we are seeking to do in Zimbabwe, by doing all that is required so that that country is held in opprobrium not just by Europe and elsewhere, but by Africa, to make people understand the scale of its problem. Most people are now seized of that, which is why there is an intensive effort for change in Zimbabwe, but the hon. Gentleman suggests that military intervention is required. How many troops?

Henry Bellingham: One sniper.

Adam Ingram: How many troops would be required? The facetious way in which the hon. Gentlemen approach this shows that they have no understanding of international affairs. If the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) is now saying that we should opt for assassination, that is a very dangerous road to go down, and I am not so sure that those on the Conservative Front Bench would support him.

Mark Francois: I am afraid that I have to tell the Minister that, despite repeated questions, he has been very vague about the ultimate mission that this recce is designed to support. France is described in his statement as the framework nation, providing the military commander. Can he please explain to the House what will be the command and control relationships above that level? How will they interrelate with the UK Ministry of Defence?

Adam Ingram: The likelihood is that we will have a lieutenant colonel in command of our deployed forces, under a French brigadier. A command and control structure will then be established in Paris, to which we are sending six officers, so we will have an input into that. We will have a liaison officer with the UN MONUC forces. The command and control structures that apply are those that normally apply in such circumstances. Of course reporting back is a process that happens in every engagement. What the forces do must be clearly defined, and there must be clear reporting mechanisms in that overall command and control structure. That is no different from what happens in Macedonia, Afghanistan and Iraq, so there is nothing new about this. Opposition Members may have ESDP up there in lights, but the command and control structures are as robust and well-tested as they have ever been.

Gregory Barker: I hope very much that our officers on the ground out in the Congo are able to articulate the military mission more clearly than the Minister was able to do today to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). In the event that, before September, there is a significant escalation in fighting or a major deterioration in the security situation out there, will he look to extract this small force or to reinforce it?

Adam Ingram: If the situation changes, the planning changes, and the decision changes accordingly. It is no different from any other mission into which—[Hon. Members: "Wait and see."] I do not know whether Conservative Members want us to be there or not. It is clear that they have taken on the mantle of the Lib Dems—they are trying to face both ways. We have gone from assassination in Zimbabwe, as suggested by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, to a fulsome welcome for the intervention—but by NATO, not by ESDP—to the demands of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). What is he saying? If he is saying that, if the situation deteriorates, do we carry on with our planning assumptions, the answer is if the situation deteriorates and changes dramatically, that must be taken into account in all the planning assumptions.

John Bercow: Is that an "extract" or a "reinforce"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Armed Forces Personnel

[Relevant documents: The Sixth Report from the Defence Committee of Session 2002–03, A New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review (HC 93); Minutes of Evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 11th December 2002, from Major General A D Leakey CBE, Chief Executive, Army Training and Recruiting Agency (HC 124—i); and Minutes of Evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 18th December 2002 from Dr Lewis Moonie MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, on Legacy Pension and Compensation Issues (HC 188i).]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]

Adam Ingram: rose—

Paul Keetch: Round 2.

Adam Ingram: I can assure hon. Members that it will be longer than the first.
	At a time when we have the achievements of our armed forces very much in our minds, it is right that the House should focus on the people who have served our country so well. That is why I welcome today's debate.
	I intend to use today's debate to focus on how we support our forces in carrying out their difficult tasks. I intend to deal with equipment, personal kit and welfare support, all of which play a crucial role in helping the personnel in the field do their job. I also want to mention the programme of work that we have in hand to ensure that the armed forces are properly manned both today and in the future.
	The skill, courage and professionalism of those men and women is not in doubt, and I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their sterling work in Iraq and elsewhere. In recent years, we have asked a lot of them: in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and, of course, in Iraq. On every occasion, they have performed magnificently and to their usual high standards.
	Most recently, in Iraq, we have again seen the commitment and fortitude of our armed forces in difficult circumstances, but progress has not been without cost. Thirty-seven UK personnel have died and more than 100 US personnel have lost their lives. I pay tribute to them and their sacrifice: giving up their lives so that we might live more safely in future, and giving up their lives for a better world. I also place on record my admiration of and gratitude to the families of those serving in the Gulf and elsewhere. Their support, in operations and at other times, is vital to our troops. Anything that undermines that support undermines the morale of our armed forces and endangers lives.
	Although the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) will say more on this subject in his winding-up speech, I should note that one or two very high-profile errors were made in the way that we console and provide for the families of those who died. That was wrong and I will not try to excuse it. I hope, however, that isolated mistakes will not detract from the efforts made for all the bereaved, and the support that individuals have provided—and are continuing to provide—to the families who have suffered such tragic losses. I can assure the House that we make huge efforts to get this right, because when it goes wrong it affects us all.

Bob Blizzard: As the nature of this debate suggests, our defence capability is only as good as the quality of our armed forces. Does the Minister agree that it is important not only to support our armed forces, and deal with the families, as he has described, but to recognise properly those who have fought in campaigns, risking—and in some cases giving—their lives? I therefore wholeheartedly welcome yesterday's announcement that the people—men and women—who fought in the Suez campaign in the early 1950s will now get the proper recognition that they have long deserved in the form of a medal. That long-standing injustice has been righted, and I congratulate the Government on listening to the campaign that I and other Members carried forward with the veterans—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I say again to the House that we should start this debate as we mean to go on, with short interventions when Members give way, and perhaps short answers, too.

Adam Ingram: As usual, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will do my best.
	The short answer is that I recognise the considerable work that my hon. Friend has been done on this issue, and I welcome his congratulation of the Government for our initiative in that regard. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who had the direct responsibility for taking the issue forward. It was undoubtedly the right decision and has been welcomed not only in the community who have received those medals but more widely.
	While the attention of the wider world has understandably been on Iraq, we must also remember the many thousands of our people doing equally good work elsewhere. In particular, we should continue to recognise the efforts of our armed forces here at home. In Northern Ireland, some 14,000 military personnel continue to act in support of the police. Over the years, the work of our armed forces has contributed to the more peaceful environment that now prevails. We should never forget that contribution, or the sacrifices made.
	In addition, for the last 10 months, our armed forces have been asked to undertake a role for which they do not routinely prepare. I refer, of course, to the long-running dispute in the fire service, which I hope will soon be resolved. I would not deny that the need to stand up troops for firefighting duties was beginning to place progressive strain on our people and their ability to train and prepare for other tasks. The House will be aware of the reduced availability of our armed forces for firefighting announced over recent weeks by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence.
	None the less, it is Iraq that has been to the forefront of defence matters in recent months.

Angus Robertson: I want to pick up on the right hon. Gentleman's previous comment and the point that he was about to raise: the fire service and Iraq. I am sure that he would also want to single out the work of the defence fire service at home and in Iraq, where they served with distinction in Basra, as they did in Kuwait. Has he reflected on the comment of one of the 30 DFS staff who returned from the Gulf recently, saying:
	"I am happy to do that kind of work under the MOD, but wouldn't be too sure if I had to do the same for a private company"?
	Bearing that in mind, is the Minister still convinced that it is right to privatise the DFS?

Adam Ingram: We have, of course, made no such decision. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that we should always try to assess the best use of our resources, both financial and personnel. By making the right kind of judgments in the right kind of areas, we can release resources that meet our needs elsewhere. That is proper governance. Simply saying that everything is okay—that nothing needs to be fixed, examined or analysed—is living in a false world.
	There is no doubt that the defence fire service makes a major contribution through its firefighting duties and made a superb contribution in Iraq, as it does in every conflict in which it finds itself. I have met members of the DFS and I know how strongly they feel about that. I have met the trade unionists on this issue and, as we move forward to a conclusion, all these factors will be taken into account when the decision is taken. The hon. Gentleman can sit in judgment on whether it was right or wrong when all the facts are known. However, I pay tribute to the members of the DFS for the role that they have played.
	It would be wrong to discuss Iraq without touching on equipment and related matters. Without the right resources, our troops could not have performed as well as they did. Operations in Iraq, the first large-scale war-fighting conflict of the new millennium, have been a real test of our equipment and support systems. I would like to put into context the formidable effort that went into making that deployment a success. It was by far the largest deployment of UK armed forces since the 1991 Gulf conflict. We succeeded in deploying the same volume of personnel and matériel in just half the time taken in the earlier conflict, which is testament not only to our improved processes and equipment but to the commitment and hard work of men and women, military and civilian, throughout the logistics chain. They often work away from the limelight, but without them there would have been no victory, and I express my gratitude to them.
	However, I cannot stand here today and deny that there were areas where our performance could be improved, or claim that everything went exactly to plan. Military conflict always leads to lessons being learned, and the best plans and predictions rarely survive the outbreak of hostilities. It is important that we capture and learn the lessons of this deployment and, more importantly, put in place solutions to avoid the recurrence of weaknesses. Hon. Members will know that we are in the early stages of a comprehensive and wide-ranging exercise to do just that. I do not intend to pre-empt any of its conclusions in this debate, but let me be clear about one thing: we will be rigorous in analysing our performance and learning where we can do better. The Select Committee on Defence has commenced an inquiry into the same issues and I look forward, as I always do, to its detailed report and recommendations. It is important to note that in this area perhaps more than any other there is no room for politics to get in the way of progress. That is why we are taking this task seriously, and why we will welcome the Committee's independent analysis and conclusions.

Tam Dalyell: Will the inquiry pay particular attention to the reason why desert boots and mosquito nets apparently arrived much later than they should have done? Will it also look at how the logistics line can be improved, especially if there is to be a commitment in the swamps of the Congo?

Adam Ingram: Earlier, I said that there were valuable lessons to be learned. We should not minimise or downplay the scale of what we did in achieving a successful conclusion. I accept that we need a rigorous examination of everything that went wrong—it is not just mosquito nets or boots that we have to look at, but other equipment that was supplied. However, given the scale of the deployment of 45,000 personnel, it would be wrong to think that the logistics chain could not meet the demands of a small number of engineers and force support personnel in any future deployment in the Congo or elsewhere. Lessons have been learned over time, and there will be fundamental research and analysis of problems. I welcome the role played by the Select Committee, as it can cast a fresh eye over the issue, although I suspect that it will probably come to the same conclusions. Its very independence, however, will assist us in making sure that the right lessons are learned and solutions properly applied.
	I visited Iraq three weeks ago and, although my visit was short, I picked up many important messages from our troops, ranging from senior commanders to front- line soldiers. I was delighted to be accompanied by the hon. Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). However, I must tell the House that I learned from a press release issued by the hon. Member for Hereford afterwards that I had accompanied him on his visit—[Laughter.] I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for allowing me to do so. I do not know how I would have got there without him, but perhaps he would like to tell me.

Paul Keetch: I am delighted to tell the Minister that I checked the wording of that press release, which said that I travelled with the Minister. I know that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) will have seen the Hereford Times which, when that press release was issued, correctly said that we all went together. However, in a letter that the newspaper did not publish, someone wanted to know who Adam Ingram was. I am sure that it was not written by a member of the armed forces.

Adam Ingram: I hope that people in the area are learning about their Member of Parliament and the way in which he puts out press releases. However, there is a serious point. While I understand the need for publicity—I am not talking about his particular press release—both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokesmen rushed too quickly to judgment and implied criticism in statements put out after their visit. If there was an easy and instant analysis to be made, it would have been done by now, and if all solutions were straightforward, as both hon. Gentlemen implied in their press releases, they would have been implemented. The truth is that neither is the case, which is why we are undertaking a methodical, thorough lessons process. We hope to publish early reflections from that examination in the near future, and a full report will be published in the autumn.
	We have some early indications. While some members of the press may be disappointed to hear it, we believe that our equipment performed well, from the precision weapons delivered from the sea and air to the AS 90 artillery weapon, the Challenger 2 main battle tank and the modified SA80 A2 rifle.
	While I am on the subject of equipment, I am pleased that today we have announced the result of a competition to further enhance the precision-guided strike capabilities of the RAF. That £120 million programme will be met by Raytheon's Paveway 4 system. The weapon will be built in the UK and will sustain some 200 jobs around the country—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is suggesting, most of those jobs will be retained in his constituency. However, that had no bearing on the decision, which was made purely on the basis of the quality, price and delivery of the system.
	It is beyond dispute that the British armed forces have come away from the conflict in Iraq with a great deal to be proud of. I must, however, briefly address the very serious allegations of misconduct that have been levelled at some of our serving personnel.

Kevin Hughes: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, does he agree that it is important to support the families left at home, particularly the families of members of the Territorial Army who were called up, as they do not have the support systems that are available in barracks? Will he join me in paying tribute to Captain Paul Morton in Doncaster who still has soldiers deployed in Iraq and is doing a fantastic job by continuing to do everything that he can to keep families together, and support mechanisms in place?

Adam Ingram: I acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend, and I appreciate that his son is a member of the TA who served in Iraq. Given the extensive use made of reserves and TA personnel, it is important that we put in place such mechanisms. Captain Paul Morton is to be congratulated, as are others in the support chain. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary put a lot of effort into dealing with the issue. We identified the problem early, and made every effort to find answers, so it is gratifying to hear that that paid dividends.
	I was referring to the serious allegations of misconduct levelled at some of our serving personnel. The House would not expect me to discuss individual cases. Every substantive incident reported to us is investigated thoroughly, diligently and with regard for due process. If wrong has been done, the individuals in question will be dealt with. However, I would not want the alleged conduct of a few individuals to detract from the magnificent performance of our people in Iraq. Following the start of military action, within just one week, British forces made great early progress. That initial surge was followed by a mature and measured approach, gathering intelligence and assessing the situation, which paid dividends in the capture of Basra, the second city of Iraq, and a scale of accomplishment difficult to envisage.
	Thanks in no small measure to our people, decisive combat operations in Iraq came to an end over a month ago. Since that time UK forces personnel have been providing humanitarian relief and stabilisation. We aim to create an environment within which ordinary Iraqis will be able to construct viable, fair and free political and economic institutions, and to reintegrate themselves into the international community. But the work of those who remain in Iraq goes on, and it is as important as it has ever been. We have to date withdrawn over 20,000 of our men and women from theatre. Thousands are still there, engaged in an enormous range of activities alongside the Iraqi people themselves, helping them to establish local authorities and basic utilities, and ensuring law and order.
	It is appropriate to make special mention of our reservists, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) did. The scale of the reservist contribution has been unparalleled in recent years, fully reflecting the aims in the strategic defence review that the reserve forces should be more integrated, relevant and usable. Those who deployed to the Gulf serve in reserve units and sub-units and as individual augmentees, and they have served with distinction alongside our regular forces.
	It should not be forgotten that the presence of those reservists on operations owes much to their employers in both the private and public sectors, and the support that they have provided. I pay due tribute to them. In addition, hundreds of civilians, many from British industry, deployed alongside our troops in a variety of roles, and I pay tribute to their commitment and the vital part that they play alongside the UK armed forces.

Andrew Murrison: What is the Minister doing about reports that 80 per cent. of TA personnel deployed to the Gulf think that their employers might baulk at further deployments in the near future? Clearly, that has serious implications for the use of our Territorials in future conflicts.

Adam Ingram: Because this was the first time that we have had to use such personnel in such large numbers, one of the lessons learned must concern the reaction of employers. Work must be done in that community too, to make everyone in this country realise the importance of the reserves and TA personnel, who can be called upon at times to deal with the threats to this nation. If employers thought that there was an easy solution, they would be wrong. If we thought that there was an easy solution, we would be wrong as well. That is why a great deal of effort went into speaking to employers in advance of the possible conflict in Iraq, and more effort will go into that. We must get it right, because those reserves and TA personnel are critical, and they could be used at any time. We hope that industry and employers, public and private, will begin to understand that crucial message.
	In creating a better future for Iraq, work continues to identify and secure suspected weapons of mass destruction sites. That will take time. Saddam Hussein had years to hide his WMD programme, and those who expect instant success are being both unreasonable and naive. In addition, our forces are playing their part in the wider coalition efforts to secure evidence of war crimes and other atrocities undertaken by Saddam's regime. I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the recent appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) as our special envoy on human rights issues. I know that she will be as fearless in exposing the barbaric excesses of Saddam Hussein's regime—many of them committed right up to the outbreak of the conflict—as she will be in helping to set new human rights standards for the new Iraq.
	A number of objectives remain outstanding in Iraq. British forces will maintain an appropriate presence in Iraq for as long as necessary to achieve our aims of helping Iraq to become once again a viable and self-standing state. Once the job is done, we will leave.

Tam Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that last Wednesday the Speaker gave me an Adjournment debate on the detention of Tariq Aziz? Is it not important that, whatever we may think, there should be trials fairly soon? Otherwise, the west is not setting the example. People who may have done terrible things deserve at least to be put on trial, and fairly soon.

Adam Ingram: I have nothing further to add to the response that my hon. Friend received in that Adjournment debate. Clearly, the task is to set proper standards, as we seek to do elsewhere when we deal with difficult regimes and the reconstruction of damaged countries. It is important that we try to obtain information that is around and which could still pose a threat, not just to the coalition forces, but to the world overall. Dissemination and proliferation of the material that we know to be there pose a threat internationally. We must establish what war crimes were committed and set out the framework for moving forward.

John Bercow: Given that those charged with weapons detection and those responsible for national reconstruction are different groups of people, can the Minister throw any light on why it was only last week that the Prime Minister was able to announce and focus on the formation of the new group charged with the identification of weapons of mass destruction? Can the right hon. Gentleman further say, at least in broad terms, within what time scale the important work of that multinational group is to be undertaken and reported?

Adam Ingram: The time scale will be determined by what the group finds and its success in speaking to the people currently under our control—those who have given themselves up, or been taken into the coalition forces' control for the purpose of identifying the type of activity in which they were involved and the threat that they posed and could have continued to pose if they had remained at large. I do not recognise the way in which the hon. Gentleman describes the Prime Minister's decision. Such things obviously take time to put in place. They have to be defined and structured, and a range of command relationships has to be put in place. Personnel have to be mobilised. The Iraq survey group is being marshalled for that task. It will have an important role, it is sizeable, and it will now commence its important activity, which I know the hon. Gentleman would welcome.
	Let me move on to the operational welfare package and the issue of welfare support for our deployed personnel. We recognise the importance of making proper provision for the welfare of service personnel who are deployed on operations. From the outset of operations in the Gulf, we worked hard to deliver the operational welfare package. Those personnel who are deployed to the main operating bases in theatre have access to a comprehensive welfare package which includes welfare telephones, internet access, electronic aerogrammes—e-blueys—shop facilities, fitness equipment, newspapers, and TV and radio broadcasting.
	For those personnel deployed in Iraq, I hope the House will understand that in the early days at least, the welfare package is necessarily more limited. At present it consists of telephones, British Forces Post Office mail, e-blueys and British Forces Broadcasting Service radio. We also organised, at the appropriate time, and with the support of the Royal Mail, a temporary scheme for families and friends to send free packets of 2 kg or less to personnel deployed in the Gulf. There will inevitably be questions and sometimes complaints about the operational welfare package facilities currently available to our forces in Iraq. I think that that is, to an extent, because the operational welfare package has been such a successful and valued initiative, and long overdue. Our people have grown accustomed to it, and welcome the benefits that it provides. The facilities that we can reasonably and safely provide will necessarily be limited in more dangerous or hostile environments. Now that the situation in Iraq is becoming safer, we are working hard to deliver comprehensive welfare support. The currently limited operational welfare package provision in Iraq will be extended over the coming months.
	The need to look after the front line does not mean that we should forget the needs of those at home, however, and we did not do so. The operational welfare package has been extended to help home units to look after the welfare of families of deployed personnel. With effect from 1 April this year, units have been allocated funds for measures to improve communications between a unit and its families. Those funds can also be used to improve general welfare for families in ways such as the improvement of internet access at unit community centres. Feedback from the services has been most favourable.We have sought to the maximum extent possible through the operational welfare package and other more local measures to provide some measure of an ordinary existence for our people and their families at a quite extraordinary time.
	We well recognise that times of conflict place unique pressures on our people and we have put increasingly sophisticated procedures in place to try to manage the transition for them as they leave the operational theatre and return home to their families. In line with current psychiatric advice, we avoid releasing personnel immediately after a conflict wherever possible. Instead, we have introduced a two to three-day period of recuperation for all service personnel returning from the Gulf—both regulars and reservists. The aim is to give people time to deal with issues raised by combat in the company of those who understand and have shared the experiences. As part of that process of recuperation, personnel receive a post-deployment briefing package covering stress reactions and the problems that may be encountered on returning home to families. Leaflets provide guidance on who to consult if personnel experience problems—for example, their commanders, padres, social workers or medical officers. We are also providing information to the families of returning personnel.
	I should like to touch on two further important post-deployment health-related topics. The first is Gulf veterans' illnesses. As a group, veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict report more ill health than non-Gulf veterans. However, the scientific and medical community does not accept the existence of a unique Gulf war syndrome, and neither does the Ministry of Defence. The independent Medical Research Council recently published a report that confirmed those findings. We are studying the MRC's report, which contains recommendations for further work, and we will consult widely in considering our response.I should make it clear, however, that we recognise that the complaints from which some veterans suffer may have been caused by their service, and in many cases we are consequently paying substantial pensions.
	Regarding the recent operations in Iraq, last month we announced proposals to carry out research into the health, both physical and psychological, of those who were involved in the conflict. It is, of course, too soon to know whether health concerns will emerge following this conflict, but if they do, we will want to know about them and respond appropriately.
	Let me now turn to the effort to sustain our armed forces. I shall deal first with manning. The trained strength of the armed forces grew last year by more than 1,600. That increase and a decrease in the manning requirement resulted in an overall reduction in undermanning of some 2,500.

Bob Russell: Would the Minister care to comment on suggestions that the strength and configuration of the British Army is to be changed? In particular, will he comment on the suggestion that 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment may be disbanded? I hope that he can give an assurance that that is not correct. Is he aware that the Royal Anglian is the only regiment that recruits across the nine counties of eastern England?

Adam Ingram: There is a tendency for people to set the hare running; if it is the Royal Anglian today, it may be another regiment tomorrow. There are no plans to disband the Royal Anglians and their battalions. That is the situation. The Royal Anglians are a well respected regiment of the British Army and their recent efforts in maintaining peace and stability in Afghanistan are a clear demonstration of their professionalism. I witnessed what they did in Kabul. I met three members of the regiment, in the Pioneer Corps, who had volunteered to go to Iraq. Their professionalism and commitment are without question. I hope that I have dealt with the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Keith Simpson: On the specific point made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), the future of 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment is of interest to me because it is recruited from an area that I represent. Recently, an MOD spokesman, commenting on this very point, said:
	"There will be changes to the Armed Forces commensurate with the threat to the UK. There may well be units to be disbanded, but it's not been finalised."
	That is slightly different from what the Minister said.

Adam Ingram: I was asked a specific question. We have no current plans to disband the Royal Anglians, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that he should wait for the White Paper, which will be published later in the year. I think that the hon. Gentleman who raised this question represents Moray and Nairn—or is it just Moray?

Angus Robertson: Just Moray.

Adam Ingram: That is a pity. It was a lovely bit of the country when it was joined together.
	The point about saying that everything should remain the same and that nothing should change is that it ignores facts that we have to face up to. I was asked a specific question about a specific regiment. There are no current plans and there is no hidden list. The same speculation has occurred in Scotland in respect of the Black Watch and it will probably apply to other regiments as well. Such speculation sets a hare running, causes problems and may affect recruitment. If there is any playing out of any change in posture, including in relation to the range of activities that are carried out and the size of the armed forces, it will be carefully dealt with. Such changes are properly explained and delivered, and there will no doubt be extensive debate about them in the House. We are not at that stage.

Mark Francois: Will the Minister give way?

Adam Ingram: I am conscious of the time and I want to move on.

Mark Francois: It is very important.

Adam Ingram: I am sure that it is, but it is not very important to me. I was indicating—

Mark Francois: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Adam Ingram: I was speaking about growth in trained strength and the fact that that is welcome news.

Mark Francois: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully appreciate that the Minister can take the decision not to give way, but as someone who served in the regiment that hon. Members have been discussing, I must put it on record that I think that it was extremely discourteous that he did not give way to me. Do you not think that he is being impolite?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter not for the Chair, but for debate. In any case, the hon. Gentleman has now put his point on record.

Adam Ingram: That is why I made the right judgment in my earlier comment.
	The growth in recruitment is welcome news, but we should not be complacent. We still need to work hard to ensure that we recruit and retain the right numbers of people in the right occupations for the medium and long term. The recruitment climate remains as tough as ever, with very low unemployment and more young people than ever before in further and higher education. None the less, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, for the third year in a row, numbers joining the services have increased, and the overall recruitment target for the services was exceeded last year. We estimate that some 6 per cent. of those joining came from the ethnic minorities, although we must continue to increase the attractiveness of a career in the armed forces to members of our ethnic minority population.

Patrick Mercer: Will the Minister give way?

Adam Ingram: I am conscious that others may wish to intervene, but I have taken a lot of time in trying to deal with a range of issues and I have taken a number of interventions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me.

John Bercow: We are enjoying it.

Adam Ingram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is enjoying it. That is why he has a big grin on his face.
	What I take from those achievements, however, is that 26,000 bright, adventurous and ambitious young people chose to give the armed forces the highest accolade that they can by entrusting them with their careers and their futures. It says much for the reputation of our forces that so many make that choice.
	Another priority has been to retain as many of our personnel in service as we can in line with the need to maximise operational effectiveness and career opportunity by maintaining a proper balance between age and experience. Pay is obviously an important issue in this respect. The need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people lies at the heart of the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body's work, and the unique circumstances of service life are a key consideration.

Patrick Mercer: Will the Minister give way?

Adam Ingram: I know that the hon. Gentleman was a serving officer. I do not know whether he wants to ask for a pay rise now, but I wish to finish my point about the importance of pay.
	I am therefore pleased that, for the fifth year in succession, we were able to accept the AFPRB recommendations in full, including above-inflation increases in pay, allowances specifically designed to compensate for separation from families, and new pay arrangements for service medical and dental officers. That has directly benefited the majority of personnel deployed in Iraq. In addition, the review body endorsed proposals to offer financial retention initiatives to certain submariners, Royal Signals personnel and Royal Air Force NCO aircrew.
	I am aware that operations in Iraq have served to prompt international comparisons, which are inevitably complex. Following the research it commissioned into the remuneration packages of other countries, the AFPRB was reassured that the UK package compared favourably. None of the countries surveyed provides a more generous package across the board. Given that our personnel are increasingly working in a multinational environment, we welcome the AFPRB's intention to repeat that research periodically to keep abreast of any relative change.

Patrick Mercer: I welcome the welfare package that the Minister is talking about, but I should like to bring him back to recruitment. He describes the recruiting climate as challenging and refers to the need to increase the size of the Army. Could he explain why certain English infantry regiments in the east midlands have been recruitment capped and are not allowed to bring soldiers under training?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman must realise that there is a training pipeline. To increase the capacity of the training system, we have to put in additional people, which means that we must then recruit sufficiently to allow that to take place. When the increase in recruitment commenced, there was concern that it was a blip, and that if we put too many people in, particularly from other duties, that would have been a bad use of resources. We therefore had to study the situation for some time before putting in additional personnel. Over time—hon. Members will be kept advised of this—an increasing amount of resources will go into the initial training pipeline. Measures are being put in place to try to reduce the wastage rate in order to make it more efficient. It is a complex issue to deal with, and I take the best advice from military commanders with responsibility in this area.

Patrick Mercer: rose—

Adam Ingram: I think I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point.
	We are working hard to address the accommodation needs of our people, both those in quarters and those in barracks. The programme to improve the standard of service family accommodation in Great Britain continues. For 2003–04, the Defence Housing Executive has been set a target of 1,200 houses for upgrade. Although that is a slower rate of progress than families would wish, it still represents steady improvement, and half the core stock in Great Britain is now standard 1 condition. Elsewhere, projects to upgrade service family accommodation are well under way in Gibraltar, Cyprus, Germany and Northern Ireland. Considerable progress has also been made with the single living accommodation modernisation programme. Work at the first sites began earlier this year. Combined with other projects, a total of up to 70 establishments will see work on their sites in the coming year. We are also on target to deliver 30,000 new bed spaces by the end of 2008, rising to 60,000 in 2013. In short, we have a major programme of work in hand to deliver the manpower for today and to set the stage for sustainable manpower for tomorrow.
	The reality is that sustaining the armed forces is not an easy undertaking. We are not looking for short-term, token solutions, but for a sustained programme of improvements—a solid foundation to give our people and their families the working and living conditions that they need, with a suitable financial package and a wider package of non-financial benefits. There is still work to do, but the increase in the size of the armed forces and the reduction in undermanning give us some assurance that we are putting the right policies in place.
	As I speak, our people are hard at work in Iraq with coalition partners, the Department for International Development and non-governmental organisations. They are all working together to sustain law and order, facilitating the provision of humanitarian aid, rebuilding the vital infrastructure and, critically, providing hope for a people who have lived for many years without it. The quality of our people is undoubted, as is their determination to succeed. We are very fortunate in having men and women of such quality who wish to serve their country so determinedly and so well. As I have indicated, we are working hard to give them what they need to sustain themselves and their families. We know that we have to get the "people" issues right. We need to have the policies in place to deliver the people who can get the job done. We believe that we are on the right track, and we have made good progress this year.
	The quality and commitment of our armed forces is acknowledged world wide. We must never take that quality and commitment for granted. The Government are determined to work as hard for them as they work for us, giving them the tools and support that they need to continue doing the difficult job that we ask of them.

Keith Simpson: I begin by noting that some Members on the Government Benches may be slightly distracted by events beyond the Chamber. I am glad to see both Ministers in their places, and I hope that we shall still see them there at the end of the debate. Thinking about Cabinet reshuffles, I am reminded that in 1942 Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, had to have a major reshuffle because of a series of unfortunate events—the fall of Singapore, the escape of two German warships and disasters in north Africa. The then Secretary of State for War, David Margesson, was working in the War Office when his permanent secretary came to tell him the bad news that he had been sacked. Margesson said, "Right, who is to succeed me?", and P. J. Grigg, his permanent secretary, said, "Actually, it's me." That does not happen nowadays, of course: we know only too well that the person who knows when a Minister is on the move is not his permanent secretary, but his driver.
	Much of what the Minister said can be warmly welcomed on all sides. We all congratulate our armed forces on their outstanding role in recent military operations in Iraq and their continuing role there. That applies not only to the military but to the Ministry of Defence civilians in support. As the Minister said, the deployment took place against the background of the usual training commitments, Northern Ireland, Bosnia and stand-by duty for the firemen's dispute. Our armed forces appear to be one of the few public sector groups upon whom the Prime Minister relies to deliver every time, despite very many constraints. The irony is that although they frequently protest about shortages in budgets, equipment and weapons, they deliver, which leads the Treasury to believe that they were crying wolf about those shortages. I hope that we are never in a position whereby they fail to deliver and the Treasury is thus proved wrong.
	That ability to deliver and to move seamlessly from war fighting to humanitarian aid—that great flexibility and can-do mentality—is due mainly to the professionalism, culture and experience of the men and women of our regular armed forces and their volunteer reservists. They are not perfect, because they are a mirror of society. There are disciplinary problems, as in the rest of British society. However, as we all know, few armed forces can move so seamlessly from war fighting to humanitarian aid. As Ministers understand, that professionalism cannot be created overnight and, once lost, takes decades, rather than years, to recreate. We can all agree that one of the priceless assets of the Ministry of Defence is the men and women of our armed forces. Over the past decade, the MOD has argued for capability-led armed forces. People sometimes seem to believe that that refers merely to weapons systems. As we rightly move into developing network-capable armed forces, we must realise that that does not only involve a step change in technology and systems: the people still play a crucial role, and without them network capability will not happen.
	Operation Telic was a success and showed the strength of the United Kingdom armed forces, but as the Minister said—I welcome his honesty—it also highlighted weaknesses. Some of those were due to the nature of the operation, but others, I have to say, were due to resource constraints and, at times, failures in departmental and Government policy. One of the jobs of the Opposition—and, indeed, all hon. Members—is to raise those points, but not in a carping way. Given that the Ministry of Defence is undertaking a review in the summer, hon. Members should raise the points so that errors are corrected.
	Before I deal with those matters, I want to comment briefly on intelligence and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Although the Ministry of Defence is not the lead player in the intelligence game, it has an important role. The Minister was drawn by an interviewer on "Today" in relation to what became a notorious time factor with regard to the Iraqis' ability to launch weapons of mass destruction. I suspect that that caused the Government some embarrassment. I do not blame the Minister; the problems lay beyond his responsibility. The crucial point is that intelligence and the way in which it was handled is at the core of the Government's current embarrassment over Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. It is no good the Government trying to believe that that is something that specific journalists or disaffected members of the intelligence community have made up.
	Most of us understand the problems of gathering, interpreting and using intelligence. However, the Government—perhaps for good reasons—stretched the intelligence to persuade the public and Members of Parliament about the nature of the threat. Once that is done and it has been decided—as the Leader of the House did—to talk about rogue elements in intelligence, the intelligence community is undermined. I say no more, but it is crucial for the Government to move away from that position. I place on record our appreciation of the work of the men and women in the defence intelligence community. In comparison with their colleagues in the other two intelligence organisations, they are not often mentioned.
	When the Minister winds up, I ask him to say a little more about the outstanding cases involving disciplinary action and any matters that might be regarded as war crimes. I do not ask him for specific, detailed information, but hon. Members would like to know the number of outstanding cases and when he expects them to be resolved. Will he also comment on the impact of any future decisions by the International Criminal Court? Despite the full backing of the British Government and the views of British Government lawyers, several middle and senior ranking officers feel vulnerable.
	Conservative Members believe that the welfare package is crucial to maintaining the morale of our armed forces and their families. However, we must also consider the impact of the constraints of the defence budget, the way in which people are organised and their tours of operation carried out on morale and decisions to stay in the armed forces. Too often, we misuse the word "overstretch". The 1998 strategic defence review described it as
	"trying to do too much with too little manpower."
	The Government believed that they had established a series of measures to deal with that. However, any reasonably objective view would be that the problem of overstretch remains and has in many ways got worse.
	We can bandy about figures about the number of men and women, and the amount of trained manpower that is available. However, most objective observers and our people in the armed forces are only too conscious that the nature of operations, the problems of recruiting and retention and cutbacks mean that overstretch continues to exist and is likely, perhaps even despite the Government's best efforts, to get worse. The previous and the current Chiefs of the Defence Staff flagged that up.
	The recently retired former Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, spoke about further international commitments before the recent commitment to the Congo. He said:
	"If you asked us to go into a large-scale operation in 2004, we couldn't do it without serious pain. We must allow ourselves time to draw breath. If it was to be something of the scale that we have done this time, it would have to be something that the government is convinced is pretty important because I would tell them it would take a while to recuperate."
	Only yesterday, the new Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Michael Walker, gave evidence to the Select Committee on Defence. He said that our armed forces would take approximately 18 months to recuperate fully from operations in Iraq and that they would be unable to mount a medium-scale intervention such as that in Iraq until 2005.
	Our military will do as it is told. The armed forces will argue strongly but if Ministers tell them to do something, they will get on with it. I suspect that there will be a continuing problem, given that our foreign and security policy is one of expeditionary force intervention for war fighting or humanitarian aid. What would happen if a major unforeseen crisis occurred in the next six months? It would cause the Government considerable problems.
	Let us consider recruitment and retention. All Ministry of Defence surveys on the attitudes of serving members of the armed forces highlight continuing operations, the frequency of tours of duties and the narrowing gap between such tours as the greatest cause of dissatisfaction. Again, the Government have tried to deal with that, but the nature and circumstances of operations, the problems of having sufficient troops to deploy and the fact that many operations are concurrent mean that the difficulties will get worse. Ministers have to try to square the circle. Do they hope that they can increase the amount of available manpower for direct operations and the sort of service that was required to deal with the fireman's strike? Will they have to advise the Prime Minister that it may not be possible to undertake operations in future and that there may have to be a series of priorities?

Patrick Mercer: In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend quoted a Ministry of Defence spokesperson in the East Anglian Daily Times. The spokesperson said:
	"There may well be units to be disbanded, but it's not been finalised."
	Surely that will exacerbate the problem that my hon. Friend so eloquently outlines.

Keith Simpson: My hon. Friend is right and he leads me to the point that the problem is not new in the Ministry of Defence. We can argue about the amount of extra money that the Chancellor gave the Ministry last year. Most people in the military, including MOD civil servants, say that we are considering a standstill budget, perhaps with slight increases.

Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his party leader that privatising the defence fire Service would be a "privatisation too far"? Does it remain Conservative party policy to oppose the privatisation of the defence fire service?

Keith Simpson: Yes, I think it is, on the ground that the defence fire service is deployed overseas on operations, which makes it uniquely different.
	The pressures that are now placed on the Government mean that they are going to try to make savings in manpower to pay for the new programmes that they wish to introduce for network-centric warfare. That, again, will exacerbate the situation in terms of the retention of some of the best people in our armed forces. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has any new views on that.
	General Lord Guthrie, Chief of the Defence Staff from 1997 to 2001, is an eloquent guardsman and a man with experience of military service at every possible level. He is also, in his own way—I say this in the most positive sense—a true Whitehall warrior, in that he understands the politics of defence and foreign policy. In a debate in the House of Lords last year, he said:
	"Recruiting targets are not being met; ships and regiments are not properly manned; training is being reduced; and equipment is ageing and often not available. So far as defence is concerned, there has been, in effect, disinvestment. All this, I remind noble Lords, has been happening at a time when to many of us it appears that the threats to our security are becoming ever greater."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 May 2002; Vol. 635, c. 311.]
	Disinvestment means greater risk. There is a balance to be struck here; I understand that. But Air Chief Marshal Burridge, appearing in front of the Select Committee yesterday, talked about a culture in the Ministry of Defence—to provide savings to meet the new managerial requirements of defence—of "just in time". One day, "just in time" could become "just too late". In my opinion, that would be a risk too far.
	I want to mention a number of issues just briefly, because I know that several colleagues wish to speak. The Minister rightly praised the role of our Territorial Army and our reservists. Under the strategic defence review, they are absolutely crucial for expeditionary warfare and humanitarian aid. That is not an either/or. In response to a point made about the attitude of employers, the Minister rightly said that many people still think of members of the Territorial Army as weekend soldiers who are static-based in the United Kingdom. We cannot perform the kind of roles that are now required without the Territorial Army; that is a fact. In addition, since 11 September, they are also to be required to play a major role in a new form of home security force to be set up in the autumn—we look forward to hearing details—to help to deal with the impact of any major terrorist incident here.
	Many of us have been overwhelmed by comments from members of the Territorial Army and from employers about a series of organisational failures by the Ministry of Defence in relation to their call-up, and their pay and allowances. That is going to happen when we call up large numbers of men and women. However, I should have thought that, despite the size of the call-up, we could have had better systems in place by now. After all, we called up large numbers of people for Kosovo, and smaller numbers for Afghanistan. We have also had training exercises of one kind or another. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in the early autumn about the measures that are being put in place to ensure that these problems do not arise again.
	It has come across loud and clear—as my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) said—that, unfortunately, many members of our territorial armed forces will think of leaving. Some have already told me that they intend to do so. Unless we catch this quickly, large numbers of employers, when interviewing someone for a job, could well have a negative view of that man or woman if they have a reserve commitment. Ministers know only too well that the Territorial Army is not an add-on; it is crucial to their expeditionary warfare.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend and I share a significant defence interest: he has Swanton Morley in his constituency; I have a lot of people from RAF Marham living in mine. Is he aware that one of the main concerns among territorials and regulars across the board is the tidal wave of political correctness that is going through the whole of our armed forces? Does he agree that the time has come for us to exempt our armed forces from the provisions of human rights legislation?

Keith Simpson: The tidal wave of legislation does not refer just to that. It also refers to the mass of targets, rules and regulations that apply not only to members of the armed forces but to our teachers and doctors and to the police. Many people in the Ministry of Defence are overwhelmed by bureaucracy largely brought in by the Treasury and implemented by the Ministry.
	The Defence Medical Services have played a crucial role in previous large-scale operations, and they did so again in the Gulf. Fortunately, this time round, they were hardly used at all. Two issues have been identified from their deployment. The first is that large numbers of doctors in the regular armed forces were taken away from their jobs with their military units and effectively put into transit camps, but not used. A number of them have told me that they are now thinking of handing in their papers. Secondly, there were major problems with TA medics, many from the national health service, getting leave of absence. Ministers are going to have to get that right in future operations.

Paul Keetch: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree, however, that the work done at the Birmingham Defence Medical Services centre has been outstanding? I know from some of my own constituents who were injured in action that they received excellent treatment there. Like all our armed forces, when these services are called upon to act, they do so in an excellent manner. The hon. Gentleman is right about the reservists, but the Defence Medical Services centre in Birmingham is providing an excellent facility.

Keith Simpson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Once again, that is the result of a can-do mentality. But a number of military personnel—both at operational level and among the medics—have said that we have been fortunate, in that the operations in which we have been involved have been short and sharp, and have not, thank God, involved large-scale casualties. We cannot assume that that will always be the case.
	I welcome what the Minister said about the approach to pay and conditions, but I would like to highlight one factor that I know many hon. Members found appalling and which upset soldiers, sailors and airmen who were deployed during the firemen's strike. It cannot be right that the pay of a basic soldier risking his life in a fire dispute is 50 per cent. less than that of the fireman whom he is replacing. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the dispute, to many people, that seemed obscene and did more than anything else to highlight the pay of our soldiers at the bottom end of the scale.
	I heard what the Minister said about our armed forces' total package. It sounds and looks good when compared with others internationally, but I would urge him once again to consider the possibility that when our armed forces are deployed on operations overseas, a way might be found of negotiating with the Treasury to ensure that they do not have to pay income tax during that period. That would be a small but positive indication, in financial terms, of how much we appreciate what they are doing.
	The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has reported problems in service family accommodation and single-living accommodation while the MOD's Defence Housing Executive has said that it will be unable to meet its target to upgrade all core UK service family accommodation stock to standard 1 conditions by November 2005. No new targets have been set. Can the Minister tell us why?
	Overstretch and working conditions take us back to what we heard at the beginning of the debate. There is no doubt that, from all the information we have, the average number of hours worked across the three services increased from 48.1 a week in 2000–01 to 54.5 a week in 2001–02 while the number of hours on duty increased from 75.1 to 89.5 a week. The point about that is that our armed forces have unlimited liability and they cannot strike. On the whole, however, they have a can-do mentality, so if they are told to be at Brize Norton by the end of the afternoon, they get there.
	Eventually, however, if the stress and strain on people's lives, working conditions and families become too great, they will not stay. No matter how many people we get in through the front door, the problem, as the Minister knows only too well, is that we are losing people who have been trained and who have something to give the services after eight, nine or 10 years. That means we face a major difficulty.
	The debate is about armed forces personnel. Conservative Members believe that the morale of our armed forces depends not just on the package that Ministers put forward, but on the constraints put in place by Government policy on commitments, the force structure and the working conditions that the Government provide for our armed forces.
	The reduction in the armed forces has reached the point of critical mass. Field Marshal Lord Vincent, when Chief of the Defence Staff, reckoned that the Army would start seriously to lose its capability in many areas if it fell much below 100,000 men and women, as a lot of things just could not be done. We have not reached that stage yet, but we are close to it. If the figure drops below that, the Government will be forced not to do certain things. Alternatively, we will put our men and women in the firing line where they will be taking a risk too far. Instead of being just in time, it will be just too late.

Tam Dalyell: It is easier to put armies in than to pull them out, and it is with trepidation and deep concern that I support the Government in sending troops to the Congo. I say that partly because in November 1990 I led an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Zaire as it then was. Also present were my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) and two extremely perceptive and nice Conservative Members of Parliament, Jack Aspinwall and Harry Greenway. I say to Ministers, for heaven's sake, be careful about the Belgians and committing Belgian troops to this particular scheme.
	I make that remark because of two conversations, both held at night and over meals. One took place in Kinshasa, the other in what used to be the province of Katanga. Bitterness exuded against the former Belgian occupiers and imperialists. I simply report what was said. I am a man with many Belgian friends, but it was remarked, "You British, the French, the Dutch and the Portuguese had far more understanding of colonial welfare and doing something for colonies. You cannot imagine what the Belgians were like." There is history here, and we really must take account of it.
	Disregarding for a moment the rights and wrongs of the war against Iraq, let us look at the positive side in relation to the armed services. The British forces proved to be a well-trained battle group. They were extremely well led and their training in Canada, Germany and, indeed, Northern Ireland proved to be invaluable.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister is surely right in saying that much equipment worked extremely well. The Challenger, with its desert modifications, was, I am told from many sides by those who were out there, an outstanding success, especially as Iraq is not like the Omani desert. I also understand that the Warrior was a considerable success. As my right hon. Friend said, however, there are lessons to be learned.
	As one who favours a British force going to the Congo under United Nations auspices, I would like to ask certain questions. First, is the Ministry of Defence happy about the logistics of getting supplies into the field? My right hon. Friend said that there is to be an inquiry into the supply of equipment to the armed forces in Iraq. I hope that it deals specifically with the question of the speed with which supplies can get to the sharp end, where they are needed.
	Will the inquiry also consider whether there was proper tracking of supplies? I refer in particular to the desert boots and the mosquito nets. Was there not a general problem of key equipment arriving weeks after it was required? If lines of communication had been further extended beyond Kuwait to Basra, would there not have been huge problems and will not such problems become evident, even if there is only a small force to start with, in the Congo? Is it not the expensive truth that in the 21st century we can mount an expedition only if we do what the Americans have done—have kit in store? I ask my right hon. Friend whether something can be said in the winding-up speech about that concept. I have no doubt that it is very expensive.
	Did not much of the desert kit arrive late? After some weeks, clothing for temperate conditions was taken from the soldiers. Will they get it back when they return to Germany? I am told that there may be an element of waste, and that that kit has not yet been returned.
	What about the future of the Royal Armoured Corps? If we reduced it further, to below critical mass, it would be unwise to rely on attack helicopters, which have not all been a huge success. If I am wrong, no doubt some reference will be made to the subject.
	The present Government possibly use servicemen more lavishly than any recent Government, sending forces here, there and everywhere. We must consider the whole question of retention. A young, unattached serviceman may be happy to go here, there and everywhere, but what about a non-commissioned officer with a young family, especially if that family is based not at Redford barracks in Edinburgh or somewhere in East Anglia but at Fallingbostel in Germany? Must not some allowance be made for family life?
	I want to know about the future of that German base. What if we return to the earlier situation in Germany? Should we not consider arrangements that will need to be made if the man of the family must go off to Suffield in Canada or serve in the Congo, while his family remain at Fallingbostel or Luneburg?
	Let me now ask a question of which I have given the Minister notice. Yesterday there was an IPU visit from Senegal. The delegates, particularly Professor Iba Der Thiam and Mr. Madieyna Diouf, pleaded with their British hosts, at a formal meeting, to try to protect their fishing off the coast of west Africa. They said that the rules had been broken, that the agreement that I have mentioned to the Ministry of Defence had not been honoured, that fishing net sizes did not accord with what had been agreed, and that there had been too many instances of dynamiting of fish, especially by Russian and Spanish fishermen. Would it not be of practical help to offer some kind of fishery protection to a country that has only two helicopters and one ancient frigate?
	It is not just the west Africans who should be looked after, though. For heaven's sake what about the Scottish fishermen, and the English fishermen too? I think particularly of the havoc being wreaked on the Darwin Mounds reefs and the bottom-dredging of potentially rich seas, important for fish breeding, off the western isles of our country. Is there not a major and urgent role for fishery protection?

Roger Gale: Let me begin with a tribute. At the beginning of the Iraq war, there was an incident involving helicopters in which aircraft were lost with all crew. One of the crew was Marc Lawrence, a young constituent of mine. That loss was a source of terrible grief for his parents, Ann and George Lawrence, who live in my constituency. Their grief was exacerbated by the fact that, given the circumstances of the war, it was not possible to conduct the most thorough of searches, although considerable resources were put into immediate effort. As a result, Marc's body was not recovered at that time. While others suffering equally terrible losses were at least able to bury their dead and begin the grieving process properly, George and Ann Lawrence were left in limbo. They did at least have the comfort of knowing that Marc died doing what he was trained to do, in the interests of his country.
	I thank the Minister's military assistant in his private office, his staff and the Minister himself for the sympathy and courtesy that they extended to the family and for the arrangements that they have begun to make. I also place on record my thanks to our ambassador, Chris Wilton, his wife and staff, who again took great pains to do everything they possibly could to alleviate the grief.
	Thankfully, Marc's body, when time and circumstances permitted, was recovered. I understand that it will, if it has not already been, be returned to the United Kingdom and given a proper burial. As an aside, I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will consider erecting a fitting and permanent memorial to all those who gave their lives in the Iraqi conflict—and it is not over yet.
	I have to inject a slight note of discord, but not in terms of the MOD or the armed services, although with hindsight it is easy to see that certain things may have been handled better. The discord relates to the media coverage of those events. While George and Ann Lawrence were still waiting for news of the body of their only son, the BBC found it appropriate to transmit what became known as the al-Jazeera programme.
	I have already publicly criticised the media in general for what I have described as the soap opera coverage of the war. The sequence of events was turned by the media circus into something akin to the "Big Brother" house: people can watch that programme at any hour of the day or night.
	It is true—I suppose we must be thankful for small mercies—that, at the time, the British media forbore from transmitting the al-Jazeera pictures of British dead. However, the BBC found it appropriate barely two months after the start of the conflict to show those same pictures. That was done in the teeth of opposition from the MOD and against the express wishes of the families of the dead. It caused, and I believe still causes, pain and very considerable offence not just to those families but to the friends of those comrades who gave their lives—in effect, to the whole service family.
	Speaking on the morning prior to the transmission of that programme, a very senior BBC news executive said, and I paraphrase, that he found it in order to show the programme at that time because the bodies had come home and been buried. At that time, one body, that of my young constituent, most certainly had not. I believe that the arrogance of the armchair warriors in the editing and executive suites of White City has to be called to account by the House.
	I do not wish for one moment to question the bravery or dedication of the embedded reporters, as they became known, or of those reporters working behind enemy lines. They had a terrifying job, literally, and a difficult one, and I am sure that they did it with great professionalism and courage. However, speaking as one who has had to make difficult editorial decisions as a producer and director, I do not believe that it was appropriate for that footage to be shown at that time, with nerves, feelings and sentiments still very raw.
	I hope that, should we face such conflicts in future, our Government, of whatever political persuasion, will consider very carefully what facilities should be made available and their relationships with media organisations, to ensure that, while fair, proper and honest reporting, perhaps of military disasters, is not censored, by the same token, we do not turn war into a "Big Brother" media circus.
	In that context, what I have to say next seems almost trivial, but I want to refer briefly to the future, to the next generation of Marc Lawrences—young men and women who will come forward, train and dedicate themselves to the service of the United Kingdom, being prepared, if necessary, to give their lives. Many such young people come through our cadet forces—the Army, the Navy and the Air Force cadets, and indeed the combined cadet forces that still exist in some schools.
	I have the honour to be president of the 1063 (Herne Bay) Squadron Air Training Corps. I am aware of the incredible contribution that those young people, and those who give of their time and energy to train them, make to our armed services. It is not simply an aside to say that our cadet forces also make a considerable contribution to the social environment in which young people grow up. I do not think that any Member of the House would quarrel with the fact that there are many young people who might otherwise be on the streets and up to all manner of mischief who find a worthwhile and valuable path to follow in our cadet forces.
	On a recent visit to the training ship Royalist, I was not especially surprised to learn that 25 per cent. of the Royal Navy's intake now comes through the cadet forces. For those embarking on and completing basic training, the figure rises to 28 per cent., because of the drop-out rate in the first few weeks among those who have not had that previous military experience. By the time those intakes get to the point of becoming non-commissioned officers, the figure is higher still.
	I am raising this issue now not simply because I want to make a plea for more money—but please, Minister, can the cadet forces have more money?—but because of a problem of attitude. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned political correctness, and I am afraid that it exists among educational establishments, and secondary schools in particular, in relation to uniformed groups. It is a sad fact that, while of course there are honourable exceptions, many schools now—too many, I would argue—do not welcome participation in uniformed activity, be it Army, Navy, Air Force, boy scouts, girl guides or St. John's.
	When it comes to going on annual camp, or a young man or woman being able to take a training trip on the TS Royalist, for example—because there is only one square rigger like that available to the Navy cadets, they have to try to use it throughout the year, and inevitably it cannot always be done in holiday time and has to happen, quite appropriately, as part of the educational experience, in term time—we run into difficulties. I am told that for some, that presents very real difficulties, because certain educators do not find it appropriate to treat what most of us regard as a valuable experience as part of the educational curriculum. Given the emphasis that we now place on citizenship, and given the contribution to citizenship that the men and women of the armed forces in general and the cadet forces in particular make to the community, I cannot help feeling that we need to address this issue. I urge the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to see whether better guidance can be issued to ensure that those who wish to participate in these activities—I am certainly not talking about compulsion—are enabled to do so.
	I have almost taken too much time, but as others have done I just want to place on the record, on my constituents' behalf, our appreciation for the work of the Territorial services. Several of my constituents have given their men—and in some cases, their women—to the war in Iraq. They have done so bravely, willingly and voluntarily. Within the armed forces there is an extended personnel: the husbands, wives and children who stay at home. They have supported their men and women from afar, using the facilities that the military have made available—blueys, food parcels, goods parcels, the internet, mobile phones—to make sure that they stay in touch with those at the front line. Indeed, one of my own constituents, a Territorial man, has been at the very front line—in the heart of Basra. Such support has ensured those in the front line know that they can get on with their job for their country, because the folks back home are okay.
	There has been a problem with some employers, and future problems will doubtless result from current experience. We must address that fact, because there is no doubt in my mind that all of us owe an immense debt of gratitude to the men and women who are prepared to give so much, and who, sadly, in one or two cases have given everything.

Paul Keetch: The House has just heard a very moving speech from the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), and I hope that the Minister was listening in particular to the earlier remarks about press coverage of certain aspects of the war. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were very important, and I hope that the Ministry of Defence's review of the involvement in Iraq will deal with the press issue as well.
	It is of course right to begin by congratulating the British armed forces on their continuing professionalism and hard work in difficult circumstances, which I witnessed myself on a trip to Basra and southern Iraq with the Minister of State and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). The decision to go to war in Iraq split this nation and, indeed, this Parliament, but the whole country has rightly been united in praise for the work of the armed forces, and I repeat that praise now. We should also praise their families because they also suffer who wait at home. Indeed, some 37 have had to accept paying the final price; we are fortunate that the number was not much greater.
	The war in Iraq has had many implications for our armed forces and for our country as a whole. The lessons for the MOD are many—from equipment to logistics, from inoculations to pay. On visiting our forces in Iraq, I discovered that they were rightly proud of the job that they had done and were in good spirits, but there were several issues that they asked me to raise, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond to them in his reply.
	The Father of the House mentioned logistic supplies, with which there were some considerable problems. I was told of a container that went missing for eight weeks. It was to be collected the day after I left—after peace had actually been won. Mention has been made of parcels sent from relatives to the troops, but the troops also like to send parcels back. They have to pay for doing so—I do not know why. I have also been told that flights arranged from Germany for families to visit troops were arbitrarily cut from two per soldier to one. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true? There were other problems—more serious, in some respects—such as small arms ammunition shortages, which were rife at the beginning of the campaign. Air Marshall Brian Burridge referred to the problem with boots at the Defence Committee yesterday, and we also heard that the desert camouflage arrived too late.
	Troops were concerned about other aspects of the war, particularly what they saw first hand of the looting. For example, every desk and computer was looted from Basra university, and the troops wanted to know why there were no plans in place to deploy them to help the situation. Amazingly, they were told that they had to protect various Ministry buildings and the land registry, but there were no plans to protect hospitals or universities.
	Some positive things resulted. The reconstruction effort has been first class. The phone calls and the operational welfare package were well received, as were the e-blueys. Some of the equipment worked well: Challenger 2 was exceptional, Storm Shadow was very good and Raptor excellent. As one of the most vehement critics of the SA80 rifle, may I put on record my acknowledgement of the fact that it at last appears to be working correctly. I congratulate the Ministry of Defence on that: it has taken time, but it has finally got it right. The purchase of the Minimi light machine gun has also been welcomed by all the forces.
	Our forces over there, like people here, were also asking questions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. They want to know whether there were intelligence failures, whether reports were exaggerated, why they were not told of a tactical threat and why they crossed the line in some cases with no training in how to put on their nuclear, biological and chemical equipment. They, too, had doubts about the reality of the threat. We owe it to the people who put their lives on the line to establish whether the threat was indeed real.
	The issue stemming from the recent conflict in Iraq that will probably have the greatest direct impact on our armed forces is that of overstretch. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) rightly referred to what the retiring Chief of the Defence Staff said about the "serious pain" that would be inflicted if we were to undertake such an operation again. We recall that in February 2002 the Secretary of State told the House:
	"We are using available resources to their maximum capability."—[Official Report, 11 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 4.]
	If we were at our maximum capability then, surely we are well beyond it now. The Government have so far been coy about the long-term requirements in Iraq. Regulars and reservists in the region want to know how long they will be there, and what the commitment will mean for their lives over the next few years, especially if they are to be rotated on several tours.
	Can the Minister tell us how many troops will be needed in Iraq for how long, and how many reservists will be sent out again? We know that it is a difficult judgment, but our forces need to be given some idea—will it be six months, 12 months, five years, or what? I think that they should be told. We also know that reservists are being relied on to a significant extent, and there is anxiety about that. Without assistance from other nations to take the strain in peacekeeping, such a deployment for the British Army alone is unsustainable.
	The strategic defence review projected that a brigade level force could be sustained in theatre indefinitely. Given that the current force in Iraq is considerably larger than anything the SDR envisaged, there must be either a size or a time limit to our deployment. The risk of unsustainability is even greater because pressures on reservists might encourage many to leave. With 48 per cent. of the reserve air forces reserves committed to operations and the Territorial Army undermanned in all but three units, are there any signs that the recent overstretch is affecting recruitment and retention in the reserves? I am told that there are.
	Have estimates been made of expected outflow rates of regulars after the war in Iraq? That could also prove a problem. We have all heard reports from regulars and reservists that explain why some now want to leave the armed forces. Many reservists were not fully briefed about compensation packages before going to Iraq, and many who applied for hardship allowances have not yet received their payments. In some cases, payments of standard awards have been delayed. SI No. 309, the regulation governing compensation, was introduced in 1997 and is clearly outdated. Are there any plans to update it?
	It is not only the financial arrangements that have been less than satisfactory. The vaccination programme that many of our reservists were asked to take has made some of them sick. There have been many reports of reservists receiving cocktails of inoculations in a short space of time, even including anthrax. That practice, which seems to have been followed regularly, is in stark contrast to MOD policy, as expressed in the House by the Secretary of State. Two reservists fell so ill after their inoculations that they could not even make it to the Gulf.
	I hope that the Minister will confirm what instructions were given by the MOD about the administration of vaccines. Are five vaccinations in one day too many? What are we doing to ensure that reservists are monitored for any problems that they may have with Gulf war sickness—whether we believe it exists or not? We should not forget those people from Gulf war one who are still battling so hard to make their points known.

Paul Tyler: As my hon. Friend knows, I take a close interest in questions relating to Gulf war one and the veterans. Does he accept that while we all welcome the fact that the MOD has been much more proactive with an assessment of possible illness from vaccination and other factors after recent hostilities, that is in itself a recognition that it was inadequately covered after the 1991 conflict?

Paul Keetch: My hon. Friend has been one of the leaders in the House on that issue. I noticed that the Minister appeared to suggest that it was not a problem to have five vaccinations in one day. If that is the case, I would like to know why the Secretary of State for Defence said:
	"it is not sensible to inflict on our forces a large number of inoculations simultaneously".—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 37.]

Lewis Moonie: When I joined the MOD I had five vaccinations on my first day and it did not do me any harm. The same applies to anyone else receiving the normal public health vaccinations. There is a big difference between those and some of the more unusual vaccinations that were given in 1991—in particular, anthrax—which is always given five days apart from other vaccinations. There is nothing wrong with being given a normal package of public health vaccinations in one go, just as all our babies get.

Paul Keetch: I am sorry that the Minister takes a cavalier attitude to the issue. Perhaps he could explain that to Mr. Tony Barker, a 46-year-old who has been a TA soldier for 26 years.

Lewis Moonie: There was nothing cavalier about pointing out that it is normal clinical practice—as a doctor, I am well aware of that—to give cocktails of vaccinations, and it does no harm at all.

Paul Keetch: Is the Minister saying that it is right to give cocktails that include anthrax vaccinations? The cocktail of specific vaccinations was given, but the Secretary of State reported to the House that that would not happen—

Lewis Moonie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Paul Keetch: The Minister will have his chance when he winds up. Many of our reservists undoubtedly fell ill as a result of the cocktail of inoculations that they were given, against the advice that the Secretary of State gave to the House.

Lewis Moonie: I would not wish to accuse the hon. Gentleman of misleading the House, but he deliberately failed to hear what I said. I said that anthrax inoculation is given with a five-day separation period from any other inoculation.

Paul Keetch: I concede that point, but it was widely felt by reservists that the cocktail that they were given was not helpful.

Kevan Jones: Some 45,000 personnel were deployed in the recent action in Iraq. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned two cases. Is he in danger of exaggerating the extent of the problem? With any type of vaccination, whether for travel to the Gulf or elsewhere, there is a small risk of side effects.

Paul Keetch: That is true, but the reservists were called up so quickly that they had to have all their injections at once, including anthrax, unlike the regulars who had received their injections over time. For some of the reservists, that was a problem.
	Coupled with the problems with kit that forces families reported throughout the war, the over-reliance on TA personnel, combined with the substandard treatment that they often receive, was self-defeating at best. Many of those personnel can quit when they return home, and many are doing so. Does the Minister have any figures on that?
	There are also many lessons for the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure that the Government will want to address them. We understand that post-operational reports on the Iraq conflict are being compiled and that assessments will be published, as the Minister of State mentioned earlier. When the Under-Secretary winds up, I hope that he will say when they will be published. I am sure that he agrees that it is in the interests of the MOD and of our armed forces that those lessons are made public as soon as possible.
	The White Paper anticipated in the autumn is to be welcomed, and I urge the MOD to use the opportunity to address some of the missing links in defence policy that have emerged since the publication of the new chapter. For example, will the White Paper deal with the security threat to the UK in the round? Since the new chapter was published, there have been more questions than answers about the role of the MOD in counter-terrorism and contingency operations. How will the proposed draft legislation on civil contingencies affect the MOD's policy planning in the autumn White Paper?
	It is clear that the SDR projections have been abandoned. The White Paper should introduce new projections, or outline how the Government intend to return to the limits of the SDR. In addition, our armed forces deserve clear answers to the immediate requirements that they face in Iraq. They want to know when they are coming home, and when they will go out again. The forces as a whole, and Parliament, have the right to expect a defence policy that sets guidelines, and sticks to them.
	I believe that the MOD has performed the difficult task set by the Iraq crisis admirably, but it must be governed by a clear and sustainable policy. The men and women of our armed forces deserve nothing less.

Tony Worthington: I start by congratulating the armed forces, as every contributor to the debate has done. It has been my privilege to see their contribution in crisis situations in various parts of the world. I am thinking particularly about Sierra Leone, where lots of other troops were involved. That was a mess, which our forces quickly rescued, and it is clear that they have performed very well in Iraq.
	I am disturbed by the clear feeling that the war in Iraq has been won. I am struck by the fact that the six day war finished in 1968 but is clearly going strong 35 years later. Whether the recent war in Iraq can be considered a success depends on what we make of the situation there from now on. My remarks will concentrate on the fact that the task of running post-war Iraq has not been handed over to the UN or to civilians. Iraq remains under military control, and we must look at the way in which our forces are deployed.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister of State made a very good speech that lasted an hour, but it was notable that he made no mention of the US. The debate has made it sound as though the war was a discrete British war, even though we were the junior partner in a coalition. That is something that I want to consider.
	Britain failed to change a decision by the US. As a result, the UN has largely been excluded from the reconstruction phase. In the US Government, the Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld won the battle about who was to control the reconstruction phase. That battle was won in February, and the result was announced in Congress, but it was in a sense ignored or denied in this country when the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance was set up under the retired general, Jay Garner.
	That episode was a fiasco. The General Garner phase went very badly wrong, and a civilian, Paul Bremer, was brought in. He immediately reversed much of what Garner had said. For example, the Iraqis thought in May that they would be well on the way to having an Iraqi Government, but we are now in a Pentagon-run reconstruction phase, with a coalition provisional authority in which we are the junior partner. Much of my speech will be concerned with finding out from the Government exactly how the CPA works, and determining what our contribution to it is. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not be able to answer me in detail today, so I hope that he will write to me. Just how are our armed forces involved in the CPA, which was previously ORHA? That has never been covered in a statement to the House, although, on two occasions, we were promised an explanation.
	Bremer's powers in running the CPA are enormous. There are seven directorates for everything that a sovereign state would cover—matters such as education, health, police, religious affairs, oil, agriculture, planning and trade. Bremer has responsibilities similar to those of the House. In addition, an international co-ordinating council has responsibility for liaison with bilateral donors, NGOs and, lastly, the UN.
	Bremer's main means of implementing Pentagon policy are soldiers on the ground. For our purposes, and in relation to the debate, that means that our forces in Basra are responsible for implementing his policy. Our weakness is that our obsession with weapons of mass destruction meant that the House did not consider the post-victory situation. We did not consider what we would do with our armed forces after they had swept away the Iraqi army.
	When I asked about that, the Prime Minister said that no decisions had yet been taken, but he thought that
	"the role of the UN had to be well protected in such a situation".—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 137.]
	Again, I asked the Prime Minister about the decision in Washington, announced at the US Foreign Relations Committee, that UN aid organisations and coalition partners would contribute to the reconstruction effort through ORHA and be subject to Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon. The Prime Minister did not acknowledge that those facts had been declared in Washington several weeks earlier. He said:
	"we are in intensive discussions . . . I have no doubt that there will have to be a substantial UN involvement . . . rather than speculate about what might happen, I assure my hon. Friend that we will declare those plans to people as soon as we have them properly worked out."—[Official Report, 5 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 818.]
	There has never been an explanation of what happened on the ground—that reconstruction was to be under the control of the Pentagon. We were assured that the Prime Minister had gained the President's agreement that the UN would have a central or vital role, but that role was never secured and the proposals were never debated in the House.
	The implications for our armed forces are considerable. They have to work in a situation to which we have agreed. Strangely, there has been no reference in the debate to the fact that the reconstruction phase started with a fiasco—the looting that the troops seemed unwilling or unable to stop. Buildings and infrastructure were preserved by expert bombing during the war for expert looting during the peace.
	Our forces are in an unsatisfactory situation. I do not believe that the Government desire our armed forces to be the lead figures in the reconstruction phase, but that is what is happening. The Select Committee on International Development, of which I am proud to be a member, is taking evidence from non-governmental organisations and others about the situation in Iraq. Evidence taken towards the end of May from one of the major organisations, Care International, about its experiences with ORHA states:
	"The Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance has taken upon itself the mantle of coordinating the international response.
	This body has no clear mandate for its operation and is staffed by a confusing mixture of military and civilian appointments. Housed in one of Saddam's former palaces, it is operating as if in a bunker, impenetrable to outside contact and with no avenues for dialogue with NGOs and civil society actors. While we have had sight of an organisation chart for staff of ORHA, our staff in Baghdad have found it impossible to make contact with any of them."
	Save the Children says that ORHA gave the impression of being in internal turmoil, with little understanding of its role. It was totally predictable that ORHA was not up to the job. That experience has been reported by those in each major, reputable NGO from which we have sought evidence. None of them reports any sign of planning for the post-war period. Those in the military are responsible for everything, but they are finding it difficult to provide what only they can provide— security. Admittedly, the situation is not as serious in the British zone, but surely we should now be handing over to the UN organisations those things that they are experienced at doing.
	All that leads to a great many questions about the use of our forces in Iraq. The first relates to their numbers and replacement. As several hon. Members have said, if we were near overstretch some months ago, where are we now? The Minister referred to 20,000 troops having left Iraq now, but he did not say how many were still there and how easy, or difficult, it would be to maintain the strength of our forces there. We will be there for at least a year—that is the commitment; it is written down—but I have met no one who reasonably thinks that our commitment will only last that long.
	This is particularly difficult for two reasons. Others are not available to take the place of the British in Iraq. First, for political reasons, many people do not want to be involved in what they saw as our war. Secondly, there is a continuing, severe shortage of quality troops in the world whom one would trust with that extremely difficult policing situation. So I ask the Minister how will the Secretary of State increase or refresh the forces that he has on the ground? They will be very tired by the physical and emotional fatigue that is caused by war.
	I was struck this week by a fine article by Fergal Keane, who wrote about his experiences with the American forces. In American-controlled towns, he saw
	"an army that is afraid of the people it says it wants to protect; an army that looks and often acts as if it has arrived in a spaceship, speaking a different language and praying only for the moment that it can go home. Iraq scared them."
	No one had trained those young men for the situation in which they found themselves.
	We are said to be better and to do the job better—I believe that to be true—but we are tied to the fact that we are in the coalition provisional authority. I want to know how much freedom our forces in Basra have in that relationship to do things differently. For example, if they decided fully to involve the UN organisations in Basra, could they do so or is there a one-size-fits-all situation throughout Iraq?
	Was it a wise decision by Bremer, as the administrator of Iraq, to dismiss the 500,000 soldiers of the Iraqi army and send them all off, with their AK47s, into the community, without any plan for their rehabilitation? Iraq is a country stuffed full of arms anyway. Did Bremer consult us about that? Did we have any say about it? Did we agree to discharge the army? That was not our approach in Sierra Leone, where, very wisely, we set up the most complex, detailed and well-planned system to disarm and rehabilitate soldiers.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but his remarks should now relate more to British armed forces personnel.

Tony Worthington: With all the respect in the world, Madam Deputy Speaker, they do apply to the British armed forces because Iraqi soldiers will be released in Basra. If they are released in Basra, they could be a threat to our soldiers there. We need to consider whether it is possible for our forces in Basra to deal with those discharged army people in a way that makes sense. What ability do we have to operate separately?
	Another concern, about which the Under-Secretary must know, is the confusion of roles in Iraq between the civilian and military aspects. A great deal of effort is going into trying to combine two separate elements. Let us consider what UNICEF said in its evidence to the Select Committee. It stated:
	"the confusion of roles between the military and humanitarian forces has significantly and negatively impacted on the support and assistance provided to the civilian population in the immediate aftermath of the conflict".
	What, therefore, is our stance? Are we seeking military withdrawal and the maximum possible deployment of UN and civilian staff?
	Finally, what sign is there that UN Security Council resolution 1483 is beginning to have a beneficial impact? Are there signs that the former ORHA is moving over and allowing the UN bodies to operate effectively? What is our role in that? What are we doing to overcome the American antagonism to the UN and to do what almost everybody in the world recognises must be done: to invite in the UN and restrict the role of our military, and everybody else's in a coalition war, to that for which they are trained and which they are good at? We must not to continue with the situation laid down by the Pentagon whereby the peace will also be run by the armed forces, rather than by those who are better at it.

Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman made considerable play of the pressure that the Army is under because of our continuing commitment in Iraq. One of the reasons why it is under such pressure is that great demand exists for British troops, particularly infantry units, in exactly such situations, because, bluntly, they are so good at that kind of work. If the hon. Gentleman agrees with that, as I think he does, does he also agree that, logically, the last thing any Government would want to do in such circumstances would be to reduce the number of infantry units available for such work, bearing it in mind that they are already under tremendous pressure?

Tony Worthington: I think that I said that. I did not say that the last thing we should do is reduce the number of infantry units, but the fact is that highly-skilled infantry men and women, because of the training and tradition in the British Army, have an immense contribution to make. Let us face it: in relation to the Congo, which we were discussing earlier, no one can tell me that our contribution would have been so restricted had we not heavily deployed our forces in other places, overwhelmingly in Iraq.

Andrew Murrison: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington). I shall endeavour to keep on the straight and narrow, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to confine my remarks to armed forces personnel. My remarks will be reasonably partisan, as I spent a considerable time as a medical officer in the Royal Navy and am currently a reservist in the Royal Navy Reserve. Clearly, my interest is registered in the appropriate place.
	First, I want to talk about the Defence Medical Services, which, as the Under-Secretary will know, are in a truly parlous state. There are historical reasons for that, but the situation is not getting any better. We need 120 anaesthetists, but we have only 23. We have 18 of the 43 general surgeons that we need. Of the 10 vital burns specialists that we need, we have only three. We need 800 nurses, 1,900 more medics and 415 general practitioners.
	The Defence Medical Services have been engaged in a number of theatres of operations recently: in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, and more recently in the Gulf. They are an integral part of our defensive capability. However, if we survey the responsibilities of the Under-Secretary and his fellow Ministers, the Defence Medical Services are in the most difficult situation. In the MOD's DMS attitude survey in 2001, 82 per cent. of respondents felt that the DMS was over-committed, including 94 per cent. of hospital consultants—nearly all of them. Has the Under-Secretary thought of repeating that survey in light of Operation Telic? If he did, the results would be even more salutary. I would be grateful if he addressed that in his concluding remarks.
	I am sure that the Minister has been busy over the past six years trying to improve the situation. We must look specifically at the initiatives that have been undertaken. I recall that golden hellos were introduced about nine months ago, and were well, and I suspect expensively, advertised. I looked at whether that initiative had resulted in any of my ex-colleagues returning to the DMS or becoming members for the first time. I found that in February not one recruit was attracted by a golden hello to join the DMS. Earlier this week, I spoke to the British Medical Association, which reckons that 14 have joined. That is laudable, but it is only a pinprick, given the shortfalls that I have identified. It would be superb if the Minister could give us an update on how successful the golden hello scheme has been, and how he intends to develop it.
	It is not just about money, however. It is also about morale and esprit de corps. In the past six years, Ministers have been responsible for the institution of the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, in which I have an interest, as I used to work at the Royal Naval Hospital Haslar, which became the Royal Hospital Haslar but has now closed its doors as a military unit. I was saddened when Haslar ceased to be a military hospital, and was baffled and bewildered at the decision to set up the Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham. Our armed forces are scattered throughout the United Kingdom, but they are heavily concentrated in Wiltshire and Hampshire. It would therefore make sense to have a centre for defence medicine, a college of knowledge for the DMS, close to the front line. Men and women join the DMS because they want to be with front-line units. To move them to a place without such units makes no sense.
	One thing sticks in my mind as a cause for the reduction in the morale and esprit de corps of the DMS over the past few years—the creation of the Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham and the closure of the Royal Hospital Haslar. I was delighted that in April the shadow Defence Secretary said that a Conservative Government would revise the decision on Haslar, which is very good news. I am sure that that single change would do a great deal to improve morale in the DMS and, I very much hope, to improve recruitment and retention.
	The siting of the Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham, and not somewhere slightly more rational such as Southampton—one of the options considered when the changes were taking place—shows a lack of joined-up government. Despite the advent of foundation hospitals, we still have a command-and-control health service. I would not have thought that it was beyond the wit of Health and Defence Secretaries to collaborate on the formation of a centre for defence medicine with a rational location. Southampton was such an option, as it lies in close proximity to Haslar. It would be great if that could be revisited by an incoming Conservative Administration. The only recent example of joined-up government in which the MOD is involved has been Operation Fresco, in which our servicemen and women become the flexible friend of everybody else. It is a great shame that that flexibility does not extend to other Departments and we do not have more evidence of joined-up government that benefits the MOD.
	I turn briefly, in the time available to me, to the reserve forces. Operation Telic has been a watershed in the deployment of reserve forces. Of course, they have been involved in non-territorial duties before, notably in the Balkans, but it was Operation Telic that brought the reserve forces to public attention. The description "territorial" no longer applies, because they are no longer involved exclusively in the defence of the UK's territorial integrity. Rather, they are an integral arm of the armed forces—an arm of Government, if you will.
	The Reserve Forces Act 1996 was the prelude to that. The employment of reservists on the international stage was cemented in the strategic defence review. One assumes that the pattern will continue. It may surprise some hon. Members to hear that reserve forces continue to be mobilised. Many of us think the middle east is all done and dusted, in terms of the conflict there. Last Tuesday, after leaving this place, I spent two hours doing medicals on reservists who had been mobilised. They continue to be mobilised to serve in the Gulf and in support of regulars elsewhere.
	Reservist numbers are down by a half on a decade ago, however, despite the expanded role envisaged by the Reserve Forces Act and SDR. Ministers say that recruitment is bullish, but retention, it seems, is not. That represents an inefficient use of manpower. It is all very well recruiting people, but the armed forces must invest heavily in them. We have moved on a long way from the old days when squaddies were recruited one day, and handed a rifle and told to get on with it the next. Our present armed forces are highly skilled and a huge amount of training is needed to bring them up to speed. To lose them at the crucial point where they are just becoming useful to the armed forces is a tragedy, both for them and for the MOD and the public that it serves.
	I recently asked a series of questions of the Under-Secretary of State, to which I received very prompt answers. I commend him for that. I was particularly exercised by the number of resignations that we have had from our reserve forces. I asked the Under-Secretary what I thought was a straightforward question about
	"how many resignations from the reserve forces there have been since 1 January; and how many there were in each year since 1990."
	The hon. Gentleman can be forgiven for not knowing the answer to the first part of my question, but I was surprised, I confess, that he did not have an answer to the second part. The answer that came back was:
	"The information requested is not centrally held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost."
	I probed the Minister a little more and asked him
	"what recent assessment has been made of the reasons for Reserve Forces personnel choosing to resign",
	and
	"what measures have been taken to reduce the number of resignations from the Reserve Forces."
	The response was slightly fuller, but not much. It was:
	"Although such information would be held at unit level, there has been no recent centralised assessment of the reasons why Reserve Forces personnel resign."—[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 786W.]
	That is extraordinary. If we are looking at a retention crisis in our forces, one would have thought that Ministers would get a grip on how many—

Lewis Moonie: In case I do not get round to replying to the hon. Gentleman in my winding-up speech, may I say that he is making a very interesting point? Information is often not held centrally, and there are parliamentary rules about whether one can collate it, depending on the cost. I can, however, assure him that I am extremely interested in the matter myself, and I will examine it closely to see whether patterns of resignation from our reserve services have changed, and why, as I am anxious to retain as many reservists as possible.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the Minister for that extremely positive response. I look forward to his sharing with me the information that he gleans. That is good news and I thank him for it. I suspect that his enthusiasm to try and work out why people are leaving and how we might prevent it has been prompted by some clouds on the horizon. A recent survey of Territorial Army personnel who had been sent to the Gulf found that 80 per cent. expected their employers to take a fairly dim view of deployments in the foreseeable future. Crucially, 63 per cent. of the very scarce medical and technical staff said that they were thinking of resigning. That is worrying and it suggests that we may face even more problems in future.
	I have already mentioned medics, but I should like to do so again, as they are so crucial. The British Medical Association recently surveyed medical officers in the Gulf. It received 52 replies. Three respondents said that they would quit in respect of deployments of between three or four months, and 12 said that they would probably do so. Those numbers are quite low, but in respect of a six-month deployment, 21 medical officers said that they would quit and 13 said that they would probably do so. That is worrying. I think that the BMA survey was well run and authoritative, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it.
	There is certainly widespread discontent among deployed TA medics about the way in which they have been handled. There has also been a fairly high call-up rate among crucial hospital specialists. That clearly has implications for the NHS, but it also has implications for them as a group. I have mentioned their feelings about remaining in the Territorial Army, and the situation will obviously apply disproportionately in terms of those vital hospital specialists who are required to run our field hospitals. Currently, we have the capacity to run only four out of a required 13 such hospitals. I am afraid that the bottom line is that if there are no field hospitals, there will be no military campaigns.

Ashok Kumar: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate. I should like to join other hon. Members in congratulating our armed forces on the excellent work that they have done in various campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am one of those who supported our Government on their action in Iraq. I think that it was the right decision, and our armed forces displayed great bravery and achieved the results that were necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) said that we were second partners, but I hope that we were equal partners with the Americans in displaying our bravery in overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
	This is the first time that I have been involved in a debate on defence matters in this House, so it is a very unusual event for me, although a very important one. I want to congratulate my Government, in a genuine spirit, on their achievement. I know of no previous Government who have made an effort to try to recruit ethnic minorities in the armed forces as this Government have done. I remember that, as a Defence Minister, the current Minister of State, Department of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), made an immense effort to speak to the ethnic community and raise the issue of young men and women from the Asian community joining the armed forces. He certainly did so in the Sikh community. I am half Sikh, so I was delighted at the effort that he made. I was also delighted earlier to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister state that we had achieved a 6 per cent. increase in ethnic minority recruitment to the armed forces. Great credit is due to the Government for that achievement.
	I want to raise issues regarding welfare and to focus on allegations concerning the existence of a culture of bullying and intimidation in today's armed forces, because this issue has alarmed me whenever I have read about it or heard about it on television. The other issue on which I want to focus is support for our armed forces and their dependants and families, which was raised earlier.
	Whenever I have spoken to members of the armed forces, they have told me that military service is not simply a job, but a way of life. Living, eating, sleeping and working with colleagues, travelling long distances to the world's trouble spots at short notice, and having every aspect of one's behaviour scrutinised by one's employer, irrespective of whether it is in work, is all part and parcel of life in the armed forces. Many regulars are relatively young men and women who are completely in the power of their superior officers, and there is a duty of care on the Army and other services to ensure that staff who adhere to basic rules receive basic protection and care. Many fine men and women devote their lives to the service of their country, and it can only be a good thing for them to pass on their skills and knowledge to colleagues.
	Some unfortunates, however, find themselves subject to bullying from their peers or superiors. Government figures show that over the past eight years, there have been numerous deaths in British Army barracks, but campaigners claim that little or no action has been taken and no proper records have been kept.

Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman touches on a serious subject. Will he acknowledge that over the past few years, all the forces, particularly the Army, have put a great deal of effort into combating bullying? I see that the Minister is nodding. The Army takes the issue very seriously; will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that a great deal of effort has gone into addressing it?

Ashok Kumar: I agree that a lot of effort has been made, but I want to put my concerns on the record. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that if one individual is bullied, that is one too many.
	Since 1994, nearly 100 members of the armed forces have been killed through firearms incidents and a further 156 have committed suicide.

Patrick Mercer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ashok Kumar: I want to make progress to enable the hon. Gentleman to contribute to the debate, but I shall give way.

Patrick Mercer: I shall be very quick. Without wishing for one moment to score points, has the hon. Gentleman visited a field force unit; has he felt the atmosphere in a good unit; and has he understood that bad news will always make the newspapers?

Ashok Kumar: I am expressing a point of concern, not trying to demean anyone. As I said, I speak in praise of the armed forces. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that I am addressing the issue in that spirit. I am taking part in a debate of this nature for the first time to express my concern.
	In 2000, 192 Army court martial cases involved forms of violent crime and 34 involved forms of sexual crime. Following a series of disturbing allegations concerning the suspicious deaths of four young soldiers at the Royal Logistics Corps base in Surrey, there are growing calls for an independent inquiry into bullying in the Army. Earlier this month, it was reported that relatives of soldiers at Catterick garrison in north Yorkshire, just down the road from my constituency, claim that there is a culture of fear spanning almost 20 years. It has been alleged that a soldier died during a forced march, and a former private has claimed that in 1985 he was gang-raped at nearby Strensall barracks in York. An investigation was recently announced into the suicide of 18-year-old Private Paul Cochrane, who shot himself at Drumadd barracks in Northern Ireland in 2001. It may be helpful to hon. Members if I say that although I do not want to overstate the issue of bullying in the armed forces, it is essential that the Government look at it more closely as a priority, and I raise it in that spirit.
	I turn to welfare issues. There are several hurdles between where we are now and the goal of modern and effectively run armed forces. Hon. Members with bases and barracks in their constituencies will recognise the need to forge better links between forces staff and local residents. In addition to the obvious benefits, that can help to improve the closeted, insular and occasionally suffocating atmosphere that can build up on bases with limited links with the outside world. I have already spent some time discussing bullying, and I often wonder whether a decent counselling service provided by impartial external professionals would go some way towards identifying problems before they develop into tragedies such as those witnessed at Deepcut. I would be especially interested in the Minister's comments on that.
	Another crucial piece in the welfare puzzle is the assistance and support for those leaving the armed forces. There is much anecdotal evidence to support the view that some people find it difficult to assimilate back into society after serving in the armed forces. Some experience difficulties in finding work and others develop drink and drug problems. Still others, whose problems have been highlighted in recent high profile cases of those suffering from Gulf war syndrome, develop medical complaints linked to their time in service, as the Minister acknowledged earlier.
	It would be easy to write off individual cases as exceptions that prove the rule, but it lessens the general public's respect for the military every time they hear of a war veteran who has received no medical assistance or a widow who has been asked to pay back her dead husband's salary.
	Family needs must also be borne in mind. Adequate educational and recreational facilities for staff with families not only increase their sense of well-being but show that the needs of their loved ones are important. That is an essential element of the equation when one considers that those men and women willingly put their lives on the line to defend this country. Priority must be given to the welfare and maintenance of the armed services in the field, and part of that is the knowledge that their families back home are being cared for.
	Although armed services organisations such as the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—SSAFA—do a good job, we must also consider families who live off base and the families of reservists and those serving with the Territorial Army. Many of them feel that they are outside the loop.
	I want briefly to consider reservists. One incident goes some way towards highlighting the way in which servicemen and women, be they regulars or reservists, are often disregarded. I was approached by the concerned spouse of a Territorial Army reservist. At the last count, nearly 300 Territorial Army reservists from the north-east had been called up for service in Iraq. I am sure that the anxieties that the wife of one infantryman expressed to me are not unique. The woman's husband had been mobilised and was being deployed somewhere as part of the preparations for military action against Iraq. Neither he nor his fellow reservists were given full information about the financial implications of any possible deployment until they were called up. In two weeks, they were mobilised and dispatched on active duty.
	Although I appreciate that it is not for the Army to determine whether individuals can afford to serve their country or join the TA, such information should be clear at the time of recruitment. The couple to whom I refer found themselves losing out financially as a direct result of the husband's willingness to serve his country. Before 1996, reservists had access to additional financial assistance by virtue of their status as reservists rather than having to apply for hardship funds. I would welcome the Minister's comments on a position that requires reservists' families to provide receipts for domestic outgoings to access emergency financial assistance. That is especially difficult at a time when their loved ones have departed for armed conflict and they may be in some distress.
	I am especially worried to learn that reservists and their families are concerned about the insurance cover provided by the MOD-approved company responsible for PAX, which is the cover available to regulars and RPAX—the cover available to reservists. I understand that reservists inquiring about insurance cover were regularly advised that the appropriate information would be provided at the mobilisation centre. On arrival at the centre, they were made aware that the scheme was privately run and that the company's paperwork contained an exclusion clause that rendered the cover void if deployment occurred within 30 days of cover being taken out.
	After making inquiries, I was informed that the MOD aims for there to be a minimum period of 16 days between a reservist receiving a call-up notice and having to report to the mobilisation centre. However, that is not always possible, and the time period can be much shorter. While I am told that the period of time between reporting and deployment is not a matter on which the Ministry comments publicly, I have anecdotal evidence that it can be as short as nine days. There are concerns that current PAX and RPAX schemes due to expire at the end of this month will be replaced by a new scheme or schemes which are expected to be either more expensive or less generous.
	In January this year, The Times newspaper carried articles that were critical of mainstream insurance companies which were refusing to take on new policies for service personnel. In mid-February, Forces Safeguard announced new terms for the continued provision of war cover. When new policies are taken out, policyholders will have to choose whether to take out war cover. If they do, a 100 per cent. premium loading will apply, and benefits for war claims will be scaled back to 25 per cent. of the amount that would be paid in other circumstances.
	I have written to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), this year, and received a detailed reply at the end of March. I thank him for that, but I remain concerned that the MOD line on this issue appears to be far too relaxed. Although insurance is recommended, the MOD is unable or unwilling to do anything other than point people towards commercial organisations that have nothing to gain from offering decent cover to members of the armed forces, as illustrated by Forces Safeguard. When asked in the same letter about the scheme to replace the existing insurance provision for regulars and reservists at the end of the current PAX and RPAX contracts, the Minister replied:
	"In the current insurance climate, replicating existing benefits is unlikely and some combination of increased premiums and decreased benefits appears likely. Any changes will apply to all scheme members, both new and existing, and will be promulgated to Service personnel as soon as they are available."
	I am sure that hon. Members will be as interested as I am in how serving troops will be detrimentally affected by such renegotiated contracts.
	The points that I have raised with the Minister today are matters of genuine concern: intimidation, violence and bullying. The Army itself has to demonstrate that the terrible practice of bullying will not be tolerated and that all those involved in it will be kicked out and made an example of. I also hope that the Minister will take on board my concerns about welfare matters in the spirit in which I raised them, because they are important to us. After all, everyone else who has spoken in this debate has championed our armed forces.

Patrick Mercer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar). His points about PAX were extremely well made and apposite.
	In the two years during which I have been in the House of Commons, I have never heard the armed forces spoken of here except in the most glowing terms. Is it not a disgrace that, on a Thursday afternoon, so few of us can be here to fight their corner?
	I pay tribute to the two services that do not seem to have had much of a crack of the whip in the Gulf, as far as I can see. We must remember, as my gallant colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) pointed out, that the Royal Navy played an extremely important part in the Gulf conflict. Although its role was clearly minor, that was no fault of the Navy. And without the Royal Air Force, the Gulf campaign simply could not have been won. Air supremacy was crucial and ground operations could not have continued without the dedication of the Air Force, which had been at war not just during the Gulf campaign itself, but for the 12 years before that.
	I want to go on record as expressing my undying admiration for those two services, which are both equipment intensive. The Army is manpower intensive. At the end of every conflict, be it the last Gulf war or the Balkans campaigns, a series of cuts are introduced on the armed forces, probably on the pretext of there being some peace dividend. I refer first to "Options for Change", which, as a serving officer at the time, I found extraordinarily hard to admire. Secondly, I refer to the strategic defence review, which got the personnel bills so badly wrong that 3,000 were added back to the figure for cuts, although this Government have never met that.
	Without doubt, the White Paper that is coming up in the autumn will cut the forces again, yet look at what has happened even in the brief period since the end of the Gulf war. There have been two operational deployments. One was a stealthy deployment of a complete company of the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, which more than doubled the combat power of British troops in Afghanistan—what price now the fingers being stuck in the mangle? The other involved sappers going out to the Congo. Neither was particularly technical. Both depend on manpower. The crucial point, which I shall make throughout my speech, is that if we ignore manpower—if we go for equipment rather than manpower and for fire rather than manoeuvre—we will get it wrong yet again.
	Before we look down the list of what the Army believes is going to happen to it, I shall, if I may, pay a quick tribute to the Queen's Royal Lancers. The regiment is associated with Nottinghamshire and it recruits in my constituency. It fought in the Gulf and did a good job. We are told, however, that the six main battle tank regiments are about to lose a squadron each. It is not widely known, but those six regiments do not have enough tanks to go round anyway. Only two have enough to achieve full manning all the time.
	It looks as though we shall lose about 400 Royal Armoured Corps soldiers, so I say this to the Minister: let us not get it wrong with our armoured soldiers. The battle for Basra depended heavily on Royal Armoured Corps troops. If we lose 400 trained, motivated, battle-hardened Royal Armoured Corps soldiers, we will regret it. The four armoured reconnaissance regiments need their fourth squadrons back. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that that is where those 400 sabres ought to go.

Paul Keetch: The hon. Gentleman knows something that I suspect a lot of people do not appreciate: the Royal Armoured Corps not only provides excellent equipment—the Challenger 2 was undoubtedly a success story in this campaign—but the soldiers can dismount from their tanks or AS 90s with weapons to act as infantry in support of infantry operations, particularly in peacekeeping roles. Armoured soldiers and armoured regiments, even light reconnaissance regiments, can multi-role in a combat environment, which normal infantry often cannot.

Patrick Mercer: That is an extraordinarily good point, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is quite right. The Royal Armoured Corps is immensely flexible and, with the advent of Apache attack aircraft, I have no doubt that the Royal Armoured Corps soldier will have to become even more flexible.
	Let me now turn to the problem in the infantry. Whatever Ministers say—whatever Labour Members say—it is an established fact, or at least an established rumour, that two battalions will be scrapped. It seems that 600 posts will be saved in the infantry. This is to happen before any announcement in the shape of a White Paper. Forty battalions will be reduced to 38.
	There is no doubt that the regiments that will be looked at most closely are those with second battalions. I suggest that if disbandments prove necessary, the Minister should look closely at regiments that cannot or will not recruit. Let me also tell him that we need foot soldiers above and beyond anything else. Forty battalions are stretched to the limit; 38 will find it impossible to operate.
	This is all predicated on what is happening in Northern Ireland. The idea is to close down over the next two years and allow largely infantry formations to become available for disbandment. I plead with the Minister to consider the lessons of history. Every time this has happened before, we have immediately needed our manpower, or else we have ended up stretching the serving manpower to a point approaching breaking point.
	I have no time to give examples, but the Minister knows them as well as I do. Regiments are sent to Northern Ireland apparently for six months, and then told while they are there that they must stay for eight months and must lose their Christmas holidays and holiday deposits—and of course there are all the ramifications involving families, girlfriends and other loved ones. That is simply not acceptable. It is the tangible face of overstretch.
	I was interested in what the Secretary of State said about the Royal Irish Regiment. He said that it would not be disbanded. He is right, but the regiment has four battalions. It does not take the brains of an archbishop to work out what will happen if the garrison in Northern Ireland is reduced to 5,000, which is the aspiration, and a regular brigade is left there. What price the three battalions of the home service force of the Royal Irish Regiment? Let me borrow a phrase from the Secretary of State. I simply do not accept that the three battalions of home service soldiers are safe. They are not: I challenge the Government to prove the contrary.
	My next point involves a dreadful old saw of mine. Yesterday, in the Select Committee on Defence, we heard from the Chief of Defence Staff that recruiting was going in the right direction, and we heard the same from the Minister today. We have heard that there are more people in the Army now than there were a year ago. I am sure that that is true, but let us look at the reality. The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders are 50 men below strength, and the Highlanders five below strength. As the Highlanders are brought up to strength by a company of 110 Gurkhas, they are actually 115 below strength. The King's Own Scottish Borderers are 35 below strength, and the Royal Highland Fusiliers 80 below strength. Most telling of all, two of the regiments that were warned for operations in the Gulf, the Black Watch and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, are below strength by 100 and 95 respectively. If they had suffered that number of casualties on operations, they would no longer have been combat effective.
	I do not accept the Government's excuse on recruitment. I do not accept the Ministry of Defence's assurance that things are going in the right direction. These units are in a parlous state. Meanwhile, other units that are recruiting well are not allowed to bring their recruits in to train. I made that point earlier, so I will not labour it.
	Let me return to the Minister's earlier reply about a blockage in the training system. We brought the problem to the Government's attention last year, and it was apparently solved. Now constituents of mine who want to join their county regiments are told that they cannot. It does not add up. I would love an explanation, because I have laboured under a complete lack of comprehension of the problem for several years. If the Minister can explain it, he is a better man than I am, but I do not suppose he needs to be told that.

Mark Francois: For all the reasons that my hon. Friend mentioned, which I entirely agree with, there is no logic in reducing the number of infantry battalions, but if for some bizarre reason the Government were to seek do to that, it would be even more perverse to try to reduce those battalions, such as the Royal Anglian Regiment, that have an excellent record of recruitment and retention. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for that intervention. My mother's family served in the Royal Lincolnshire Regiment. My constituency abuts Lincolnshire. The loss of any battalion from the Army would be a disgrace. The loss of the Royal Anglian Regiment, swept away by a bureaucrat's pen after 300 years' dedication to the Crown, would appal me.
	I am grateful for the House's forbearance. The Government know that they will try to cut the Army. The Minister may deny it but we have quotes, which we have already used today, from the MOD:
	"There may well be units to be disbanded, but it's not been finalised."
	Those quotes are perfectly open. The Royal Armoured Corps, the infantry and to a lesser extent the artillery are already being told what numbers to start saving. It is an open secret. It is a mistake to lose manpower.
	The Minister said earlier that we must not be afraid to change. He is absolutely right. We must embrace change. We must adapt. We must be modern and forward thinking with the armed forces. We must expand them, not reduce them.

Bill Wiggin: I pay tribute to HMS Ledbury, which is named after the town in my constituency and did such a tremendous job in the Gulf clearing mines; to the light infantry, who also served in the Gulf; and to the special forces. It is a privilege to follow my gallant and hon. Friend Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). I wish that the Government would listen to every word he says and follow his advice, but tragically I do not think they will.
	Twenty years ago, when I passed my Regular Commissions Board exam, it was explained to me that the reason why officer training was so long and difficult was that to young officers was entrusted the British Army's most precious possession—in the case of a young platoon commander, the lives of 35 of the finest soldiers in the world bar none.
	It is important that we remember that, because our armed services cannot say no. They cannot go on strike if they do not like being firemen. They have no choice. Probably the most tragic research that was thrown up before I put in to speak in the debate concerned the number of young men and women going absent without leave. That not only blemishes their reputation but reflects badly on a Government who put them in the position where they cannot bear it anymore and have to make a run for it.
	The shortfall against the current trained requirement of the armed forces is 6,510. That sounds like a big number. There has been a reduction in the requirement of about 4,110 but it is difficult for Ministers in Whitehall to realise what that means to the men on the ground, whether they be training in a drill hall or on exercise. I had a troop of three armoured cars based in Croydon and only five troopers in that troop, which was enough for about one and a half armoured cars.
	That was damaging to our ability to train. It meant that most of the time was spent doing maintenance to ensure that the three armoured cars were serviceable. It was not much fun for the soldiers or for me. We all suffered from being under strength, short of man hours and of the highly qualified trained soldiers who we needed. The Government have a duty to ensure that there are enough soldiers, sailors and airmen to enable those who are currently employed to be trained properly and to enjoy their jobs, as every person should be able to.
	I hope that the Government will also look carefully at pay, and at the council tax that service people are required to pay when serving abroad. It is tempting to allow the Treasury to steer our defence commitments, but it was hard to look the fire brigade strikers and protesters in the eye in the knowledge that the soldiers covering for them were paid half as much as those on the picket line. We must seriously reconsider how we value our armed forces. These are people who cannot say no.
	The recent court case about Gulf war syndrome has caused nothing but anguish to those who believe that they may be suffering from it and to their families. I understand why the Government do not recognise it, but I rather feel that it reflects more sadly on us than on those poor people who are suffering.
	We also need to think about the accommodation that armed forces personnel live in. If 9 per cent. of it is so bad that the Ministry cannot charge rent, and charges only for utilities, there is clearly a great deal of room for improvement.
	I know that any good Minister would want to address those issues, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will. The saddest statistic of all concerns Territorial Army reservists. In my short military career, I also had the privilege of being the platoon commander in Holyhead and in Caernarfon, and of my 35 soldiers at least seven had the surname Jones, so we had to use their numbers as well. They were fantastic people, and I cannot think of a happier time in my life than when I was serving with them, even though, because I do not speak fluent Welsh myself, they had the upper hand in that they could have pulled the wool over my eyes had they wanted to.
	In a recent survey of TA personnel sent to the Gulf, 80 per cent. said that they did not expect their employer to support any future deployment; 63 per cent. of medical and technical staff said that they were thinking of resigning from the TA; 73 per cent. said that the NHS would lose vital skills because of the deployment; and 39 per cent. were worried about the effect on their job security. If that is how this Government are leaving the armed forces, there is a great distance to go.

Mark Francois: I would like to make a few brief points as someone who served during the cold war as a Territorial Army officer in what was then the fifth battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment. I declare my interest, as it were.
	The problem of overstretch has been touched on many times today, and we are all aware of it. There has also been much discussion about recruitment and a little about retention. I repeat the point that I have made in previous defence debates, that retention is as important as recruitment, because the net figure, the difference between inflow and outflow, is crucial in determining how many boots are ultimately available on the ground—to use the buzz phrase. It is one thing to talk about how good we can be at recruiting, but the acid test is how good the Army is at retaining.
	My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) set out clearly the rumour circulating in the Army that there are proposals for a reduction in the number of regular infantry battalions. Nothing is set in concrete, but it would appear that there is at least a suggestion that this might come to pass. With all the pressure that exists on the tour plot, and all the demands made on our regular Army, and in particular the infantry battalions—Iraq is a classic example—there can be no logic whatever in seeking to reduce the number that would be available for service around the globe. The demand is tremendous: even earlier today we had a statement that a limited number of troops were being deployed to the Congo, and for all we know that military commitment could grow in time. So there is an example of how our armed forces continue to be in great demand around the world, even today. That being so, there is surely no logic whatsoever in reducing the number of regular infantry units available for deployment, whatever the cap badge or battalion involved.
	I want to refer very briefly to what happened earlier when I attempted to intervene on the Minister of State. I was simply trying to get him to clarify something that he said in response to an earlier intervention by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). The Minister began by saying that there are no plans to abolish the Royal Anglian Regiment, and I am clearly delighted about that. However, when the hon. Gentleman pressed the Minister further, asking whether there were any plans to abolish the second battalion, I thought I heard the Minister say that there are no plans to abolish the Royal Anglian battalions; in other words, he seemed to answer in the plural. However, his voice fell away slightly, and I was not sure whether Hansard picked that up. I was therefore trying to intervene to get the Minister to clarify whether he had answered in the plural, rather than the singular. I hope that that assists the Under-Secretary who is present, and that he understands why I was trying to intervene.
	We do not want to lose any regular units; we do not want to play one cap badge off against another. But as someone who served in the Royal Anglians, I hope that it is fair for me to point out that, at a time when the Army is having difficulty in retaining people, the Royal Anglians' two regular battalions have an excellent record not just in recruiting soldiers, but in retaining them in service. So by any statistical or meritocratic comparison, both of those battalions have done very well in facing a problem that some other regiments have found particularly challenging. On any merit-based criterion, they should not suffer if any of these pressures come to pass. But I reiterate: we do not want to lose any regular battalions of any cap badge.
	I end by urging the Under-Secretary to understand that the Royal Anglian Regiment is regarded with great affection within East Anglia. I very much hope that the proposal simply fades away, and that the suggestion does not get really serious. But it is only fair to tell him in all sincerity that if the proposal becomes a reality and one of our two regular battalions appears to be seriously under threat, it is very likely that Ministers will face considerable anger in East Anglia. I say that without any side or spin, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept it in the spirit in which it is offered. I now conclude to make way for the Front-Bench spokesmen.

Gerald Howarth: As has become customary in these debates, we have had some extremely well-informed contributions, and some very interesting observations from Members on both sides of the House. I am bound to say, however, that it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that behind me is a very large reservoir of experienced military hands, who bring a great deal of valuable information and military experience to the House, at a time when so few of us have such experience.
	I am sorry that the Minister of State, who pointed out that he is detained on other duties, was unable to remain with us. I am told that he has not beaten a retreat from the House but is actually beating the retreat on Horseguards Parade. So he is fulfilling his ministerial duties over there, and has beaten a retreat neither from the Government nor the House—as yet.
	I want to join all those who have congratulated our armed forces on the magnificence of their operations in Iraq; they have truly made this nation proud of what they have achieved in our name. Members were also right to refer to the contribution made by their families. This House has been keen to recognise the role that the families played in supporting their loved ones who were out there. Speaking of my own constituency and the Aldershot garrison, I should like to pay tribute to the garrison commander, Colonel Stephen Oxlade, and his team; I saw what they were doing to support the families at home. I should also like to thank the Prime Minister and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for coming to Aldershot, as well as to other garrison towns throughout the country, to demonstrate their support for the families.
	Reports have demonstrated that much of the equipment deployed in Iraq worked extremely well—mention has been made of Storm Shadow, the AS 90 and Challenger 2—which is extremely encouraging. I suspect that some of that success may have been due to cannibalisation, and that there was frantic making up of kit that was cannibalised in order to support the front line.
	It is important to recognise, as the nation has done, the difference between how UK forces operated in Basra and how US forces operated in Baghdad. I make no criticism of the US: Baghdad was considerably more difficult. However, what was clearly demonstrated was the capacity of our armed forces to switch, almost overnight, from ferocious, high-intensity war fighting to winning the hearts and minds of the local population. That is greatly to the credit of our armed forces.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) reminded us that the campaign was not conducted without loss of life. I am sure that the whole House pays tribute to families who have lost loved ones in this cause. We thank them for providing men and women who were prepared to serve their country and make the final sacrifice. My hon. Friend also mentioned the value of the cadet forces. As president of the Aldershot Air Training Corps, I am bound to agree that they serve a great function in our country. My hon. Friend was absolutely right about that.
	The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) was right to remind us that the war is not yet finished, in the sense that the military victory may have been secured, but the ultimate objective of restoring peace, order and prosperity to Iraq has not. We still have a long way to go in that respect.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) referred to the performance of the Royal Air Force. The RAF contributed 7.5 per cent. of the missions flown by the coalition forces in inhospitable fighting conditions, and I pay tribute to our pilots and those who supported them on the ground for performing so well and to such great effect. We should also recall that as well as serving in the recent campaign, they have for the past 12 years policed the no-fly zones, putting themselves in harm's way for 365 days a year.
	The Minister was fair in recognising that the success of the campaign should not be allowed to obscure any shortcomings revealed in the war and the fundamental personnel issues that arise from overstretch. There is a sense in some quarters that we actually got away with it. To some extent, that is right. Nevertheless, our armed forces secured the objective. I spoke to a senior officer earlier this week, who said that there is always a risk of coming second—and when that happens, it will be a time of great tribulation for the nation. We must not take our armed forces for granted.
	Many have warned the Government, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) at the outset, that their policy of "just in time" could become "just too late". Air Marshal Burridge made that point yesterday when he referred to problems with boots and flak jackets. Clearly, asset-tracking has been a problem: kit has been prepared and exported from the UK, but failed to reach its destination at the front. The Ministry of Defence must pay close attention to that.
	The International Criminal Court is an issue now coming to the fore. Will the Minister tell us the Government's view of attempts to haul those responsible for the conduct of the campaign before the ICC? General Tommy Franks is exempt, because the US has not signed up. There is no such luck for Admiral Boyce who was Chief of the Defence Staff when the campaign was under way—[Interruption.] The Minister rumbles in his traditional fashion, but that is a serious point. Many reports suggest that it could happen, and many learned voices in the United Kingdom have given their view that the war was illegal. It is important that the House and the public should know the Government's view of the possible intervention of the ICC in that respect.
	Much mention has been made of overstretch and I shall not neglect the issue. Since the Government took office in 1997, it seems as if our armed forces have been permanently preparing for, on, or recovering from, operations. There have been three major conflicts—the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq—and countless minor ones in Africa, East Timor, the middle east, the Balkans and, as we have heard today, now the Congo. Despite the heavy demand on our forces, the statistics show a substantial cut in the trained strength of our armed forces since 1997. The reduction amounts to nearly 9,000 and to try to camouflage those cuts, the Government have fiddled the requirements, which—despite their frenetic military activity—they have reduced since 1997 by no fewer than 10,500. If reports are to be believed, they are threatening to reduce those figures still further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark pointed out.
	Three years ago, the then Minister for the armed forces assured the then shadow Minister—now my noble Friend Lord King of Bridgwater—that the Army's manning target would be achieved by 2005, which was a delay of 12 months on the previous target date. The manning figure has risen by fewer than 1,800 since then. At that rate of increase, today's shortfall of nearly 5,000 will not be made good by 2005, but by 2010. The Government must seriously address that issue.
	The practical effect was that we did not have enough troops to cover for the firemen and for the possible conflict in Iraq. It is just as well that the firefighters did not strike during that conflict, because it is questionable whether we had enough cover. Servicemen and women certainly felt much resentment that they were called on to cover firefighters, when that was not what they had been trained to do.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newark said that the tangible face of overstretch was seen in the cancellation of post-operational tour leave. I can vouch for that. The Welsh Guards in Aldershot spent six months in Bosnia, came back to Aldershot and were told that they had to go on Operation Fresco to cover for the firefighters. They were livid. It was a breach of the contract that the MOD has with our armed forces to require them to do that, and it was a manifestation of overstretch.
	Specialist arms are also being called on. For example, the Royal Engineers will be dispatched to the Congo. They have been called on frequently to do tours, almost back-to-back, and are almost permanently deployed. That is fine, and great fun, for the young men, but for the not quite so young men, with family responsibilities, it is much more difficult.
	What is the score on fast-jet pilots? Do we have enough? We had a shortfall and the Government had to introduce special measures to attract fast-jet pilots into the Royal Air Force. As recently as last year, a survey—published in February this year—said that 88 per cent. of officers and airmen believe that overstretch is causing serious problems for the RAF as a whole. That is what the services believe about the situation that they face. Overstretch is a serious problem and the Government must do something about it. The real issue is that they are not prepared to maintain the critical mass necessary to conduct all the operations on which they wish to embark.
	The Government have promised to produce their definitive study of the pension issue before the summer recess. As I recall, it was promised before last year's summer recess, but it still has not arrived. The review was intended to be cost-neutral, but new benefits will be introduced for certain beneficiaries—for example, unmarried partners—which will mean that core benefits for the majority will be worse than before. Is that a fair reward for people who are more stretched and over-committed than ever before? The Government cannot be allowed to get away with giving second-rate benefits to our armed forces at a time when they are calling on them to do so much for our country.
	Much has been made in the debate of the question of reservists. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) was right to say that reservists were being relied on increasingly by the Government to make up shortfalls in the regulars. My hon.—and indeed gallant—Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) made an extremely impressive speech. If Ministers were unable to absorb it all as he made it, I recommend that they read it, as my hon. Friend dealt with the real difficulties facing our Defence Medical Services. The chairman of the British Medical Association warned in January that there might not be enough medical services to cope with a campaign in Iraq. As it happens, it did not turn out that way, but that was a matter of good fortune, as we did not suffer the number of casualties that many people expected. However, if we were to embark on a conflict with casualty figures that turned out higher, would we have the medical staff to support our armed forces in the field?
	There is an impression that it is the regulars who are coming home. Frimley Park hospital, just outside my constituency, is fully manned, but it is the reservists who are being kept out in Iraq. I have written to the Minister about a dentist who runs a practice with his wife in the north-west of England. He has been told that he will be out there for eight and a half months, and the Minister has put as much in writing for me. It is intolerable that reservists should be put upon in that way. It is therefore not surprising that statistics such as those supplied by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) are coming forth.
	I turn now to veterans, as it is important for us to bear in mind those who will be retiring from the services, as well as those who are serving today. We are not doing enough for the veterans. I was privileged to travel to the Falkland Islands last year with Rick Jolly, the surgeon who organised that life-saving red and green machine at Ajax bay. I travelled with 200 veterans. A Labour Member was supposed to accompany us, but he had to stay behind and do duty as hostage at Buckingham palace for the state opening of Parliament and was unable to come. It was a very moving experience to be with so many people who are genuine heroes of our country, and to stand on Mount Longdon with three of my constituents. One of them had no throat, another had lost a leg, and the third had received the Distinguished Conduct medal for evacuating about 30 wounded from the mountain. That really brings home what our armed forces have achieved, and the heroism that they have displayed, in fighting for our country.
	However, what came across most clearly was that those men could not talk even to their wives about their experiences. The nation has to recognise the debt that it owes to those people. Today's armed forces form a very small section of society. After world war two, troops returned home from the battle front to communities that understood the nature and horror of war. Indeed, people in the east end of London and in Liverpool and Coventry had experienced it, yet the rest of us carry on today as normal—going to the pub, watching football, and so on.
	We must recognise that there are very serious problems. For example, it is suggested that something like 25 per cent. of London's homeless people are ex-servicemen. I understand too that the number of suicides among veterans of the first Gulf war is five times the number of casualties sustained in the campaign itself. That is the magnitude of the difficulties that we face.
	The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) made a good speech, much of which I agreed with. He drew attention to the existence of SSAFA and to the work of the Royal British Legion. Last Friday, I visited an excellent organisation called Combat Stress, about which I want to tell the House. It is a charitable organisation, half of whose funds are derived from fundraising activities, which sees something like 700 cases a year. Its residential accommodation provides 82 beds, and it looks after people who are the victims of war, injured not in limb but in mind. Outwardly, they look as though there is nothing wrong with them, but they are every bit as damaged as those without a leg, an arm or an eye. The charity tells me that there should be much closer co-operation between in-service treatment and veterans' organisations and, especially, that we need to care for such people outside the traditional centres of care in the national health service.
	I suspect that the Treasury and some civil servants at the Ministry of Defence do not accept that servicemen are different and that NHS treatment is not appropriate. Those men and women should be treated among their peers—the only people who can fully understand the difficulties that they face and the traumas that they have experienced. I know that the Under-Secretary is trying to do something on that front, and I welcome what he is doing for troops returning home. That is good news. Will he look into the work of Combat Stress and give the organisation a fair wind and some financial support? I resent bitterly the fact that £200 million is being wasted on the Saville inquiry into events that took place 33 years ago, yet men and women who have served this country, who have put their lives on the line for this country and who are suffering in mind now, do not receive the attention that they deserve.
	In conclusion, the fundamental problem with the Government's defence policy is that, whatever their rhetoric, they fail to appreciate the real value of their largest resource—the people. Her Majesty's armed forces are not an organisation to which one can apply the mechanisms and tests appropriate to industry. They are a unique organisation whose remarkable success is founded on a set of enduring values, which are not widely replicated elsewhere in today's society. If the Government and the people of this country want to continue to take pride in the success of our armed forces on the battlefield, they must will the means to secure the continuation of that success. That means maintaining force levels sufficient to address the threat to the UK and our wider interests around the world; recognising that reserves are really reserves and not semi-permanent stand-ins because there are not enough regulars; recognising that the frequency of operations is seriously damaging the training cycle; amending the just-in-time policy so that there is sufficient equipment, fit for purpose, to give confidence to our troops; accepting that transferring duties to the private sector has its limits; and, finally, accepting that those who have been injured, whether in mind or body, in the service of our country deserve the best treatment that the world's fourth-largest economic power can provide.

Lewis Moonie: It falls to me to reply to this debate on the important topic of armed forces personnel, although, as is usual with defence debates, it has ranged fairly widely around that subject. I am genuinely grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed and who turned up. I do not know the reason for the absences on the Opposition Benches—presumably, on the Government Benches, it is because my hon. Friends are sitting by their phones—[Laughter.] I am sorry—that was an in-joke.
	I will do my best in the time available, which is rather longer than I normally get at the end of such debates, to respond to as many as possible of the detailed points that have been raised. I apologise if I miss any significant points; I assure hon. Members that no slight is intended. I shall write separately to any hon. Member whose points I miss—the parliamentary branch of the MOD will make sure of that, even if I should forget.
	Before I respond, I want to touch on three issues. First, I echo the tribute that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and others paid to our armed forces in their speeches. The men and women of our armed forces and the civilians who support their endeavours are second to none. Their dedication, courage and determination in the face of uncertainty, separation from their families and, sometimes, extreme danger have been thoroughly tested. They have risen to and surmounted every challenge and, in doing so, have conducted themselves with genuine distinction.
	I would like to take a moment to reflect on those who, tragically, did not come home, as has already been mentioned. We will not forget their sacrifice, and nor will we forget those whom they have left behind.
	The Ministry of Defence and the three services take very seriously their responsibilities to the families of service personnel deployed on operations, and particularly to the families of those who are killed or injured in the course of their duties. The introduction of a formal repatriation ceremony at RAF Brize Norton for servicemen who died during Operation Telic served to recognise publicly the debt that we owe them. More importantly, bereaved families have been looked after by dedicated staff who have sought to deal sensitively and tactfully with families at a time of immense grief and considerable loss.
	I confess that one or two things were not done either as well or as sensitively as I might have wished. In saying that, I wish not to detract in any way from the sterling efforts of those who have been supporting our families, but only to highlight our determination to do better in future. For that reason, we will look right across the board to see what improvements we can make, with particular emphasis on the ease of access by the families to the advice and information that they most need at the most appropriate time.
	I should also highlight a change that we have made. In response to immediate concerns about housing, bereaved families occupying service accommodation may now stay for as long as they need to determine their long-term housing needs, and I hope that, like me, the House welcomes that move. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]
	I also wish to allay any concern about the financial package offered to the dependants of those killed in the service of their country. While no amount of money can replace a loved one, I should correct any suggestion that the compensation and pension arrangements are in any way inadequate. The armed forces pension scheme offers enhanced pensions to the widows and dependent children of personnel who die as a result of service. Those benefits are supplemented by the payment of war widow's and children's pensions.
	Recent events have shown how essential it is that we make proper provision for the dependants of those who die in the service of their country. To that end, we decided before the conflict that we should extend benefits, on an ex gratia basis, to cover unmarried partners who were in substantial relationships with those killed in conflict. We have, however, to recognise that the current schemes have been in place for some years.
	As has been pointed out to me, my pensions and compensation review will, thankfully, appear before the summer recess. It has been delayed several times, not least because of the Green Paper on pensions and the need for us to take account of other Departments' views. The recent review of our pension and compensation arrangements has looked at how the schemes could best be updated. I can reassure Members that a decision on the final design of the new schemes will be taken very shortly, but, of course, we do not expect to be able to introduce them before 2005.
	Before turning to the points that right hon. and hon. Members made today, I should like to touch on the work that we have in hand on veterans' matters—an increasingly important part of our personnel policy. We recognise that service personnel are future veterans and that how we treat ex-service personnel and their dependants can directly affect public understanding and support for the armed forces.
	The veterans initiative—which I have overseen for two years, as Minister with responsibility for veterans—recognises that the majority of service personnel return to civilian life successfully and regard service as a positive experience. In addition, a wide range of excellent support is already available to veterans from the Ministry of Defence, other Departments and the voluntary sector.
	I pay tribute to the myriad organisations—especially SSAFA, the British Legion, Combat Stress, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association and a host of others—that in general and specific ways underpin the services that the state provides for our veterans. We could not do it without them because they bring expertise that, with the best will in the world, the state cannot provide, and I have always been a firm believer in the need to involve voluntary associations in helping with people's social and other needs.
	Our recently published veterans strategy sets out our key aims, among which are increasing the understanding and awareness of the public in general and young people in particular of the contribution made by our service personnel and ensuring that we recognise and celebrate that contribution. The strategy also aims, along with colleagues across the public sector, to tackle the vulnerability of the small number of service personnel who do not make the transition back to civilian life successfully. That is by no means an exhaustive list of work that we are trying to carry out—nor would I try to claim that there are no other issues to be tackled—but I am trying to demonstrate that we are very conscious of the needs of that group and are carrying out a great deal of work across a wide range of areas to try to meet the needs and aspirations of our veterans.
	Before I touch on other matters, I should particularly like to refer to post-traumatic stress because, as someone with medical experience, it is something that is very near to my heart, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) for raising the issue. It is recognised by us as a serious and disabling condition. Measures are in place to prevent or try to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder from occurring among personnel: both pre- and post-deployment briefings and the availability of counselling and advice during and after deployments. Preventive arrangements for the armed forces have been developed over a number of years, and they continue to be reviewed in the light of medical developments in stress management and treatment. The strategic defence review recommended that community psychiatric services should be enhanced, and, consequently, additional military and civilian clinical staff have been employed. There are now 14 departments of community psychiatry across the country along with three satellite centres. It should now be available to every military unit and to every service person across the United Kingdom.
	On leaving the armed forces, responsibility for service personnel passes to the NHS, which has a range of psychiatric services available, including some that specialise in the treatment of post-traumatic stress. If a patient's GP is of the view that specialist treatment is required, it can be provided. The NHS national service framework for mental health, which was published in September 1999, set out the commitment to provide better and quicker access to mental health care facilities for all, including the use of private mental health care facilities if agreed by the patient's GP. Ex-service personnel seeking advice on PTSD from the MOD's veterans advice unit are referred to a variety of contacts for assistance. Clearly, first, there is a visit to the local GP, who may refer him or her to a consultant. If the symptoms are believed to relate directly to work in the armed forces, the individual is referred to the War Pensions Agency for assessment of entitlement to a war disablement pension.
	In addition, I have visited Combat Stress and am well aware of the work that it does. I fully agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot that for some but not all veterans with post-traumatic stress, treatment outside the normal run of the NHS is wholly appropriate, and we are wholly prepared to support that.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that helpful assurance, which supports the point that I was trying to make that the NHS does not have the capability to deal with this problem. May I point out that 60 per cent. of those who go through Combat Stress are in possession of an invalidity pension, but 40 per cent. are not? Forty per cent. are therefore not recognised by the MOD as suffering from some kind of stress disorder.

Lewis Moonie: Strictly speaking, they are not recognised by the War Pensions Agency as suffering from it. I would have hoped that once somebody has clearly demonstrated such symptoms, the case could be reviewed, which, of course, is always an option. Again, I would hope that the better dissemination of advice that we are trying to carry out through the veterans initiative ought to make people more aware of the benefits to which they are entitled. I cannot praise Combat Stress enough. It has done a wonderful job under often very difficult circumstances. I am glad that we can provide it with a certain amount of support, and I hope that that will continue and grow if needs are seen to grow with it, as we could not do without that organisation.
	I am conscious of the time remaining, and I must not continue at too much length. Generally, however, we have taken account of the changes in practice from the past, and even from the first Gulf war conflict. We try to manage things preventively. Psychiatric services within the military offer briefings to service personnel at all levels of their training and to junior and senior executive commanders. It is planned that most stress management work should be carried out by an individual's own commander and not by medical personnel, the aim being to try to demedicalise an individual's reaction to a traumatic event. Individuals are encouraged to self-help within their natural peer group. Briefings have been provided to people on Operation Telic before, during and after their deployments. Only time will tell how effective that is. The great problem with post-traumatic stress, as anybody who has worked on it knows, is that we cannot predict who will get it. If we could do so, it would be a darned sight easier to manage.
	Following the lessons that have been learned, as Members are probably aware, I have instituted a study through the King's college group in London under Professor Wesley, which will look prospectively at the health of a sample of those returning from the Gulf this time, to try to give us definitive information on how health experience develops over time. The sample will be large enough to provide us with accurate information on the health of the group as a whole. Clearly, it is not realistic to conduct work of that depth on everyone who was deployed, but we will make sure that the sample is large enough for reasonable conclusions to be drawn. I cannot say how long it will take for that work to be completed—that is the behest of those who are carrying out the research for us—but it will take as long as is necessary. It is, in fact, open-ended, and I do not anticipate that it will stop until I am quite certain that there are no health problems about which we should be concerned. However, I assure Members that I shall publish work when it is appropriate to do so—in other words, when it is of value and when there is something concrete that I can do.
	In the limited time left, may I try to deal with the many other points that were made? Many Members mentioned the role of employers and the fear of reservists, which is an important point. Frankly, if any reservist thinks that being a reservist in the British armed forces does not involve full-time service, I do not know what planet they are living on. We have made it clear over the past couple of years that we expect reservists to serve. They will be called up compulsorily when their services are needed. To digress briefly, I agree with everything that was said about manpower. It would be lovely to have full manpower in our armed forces, but we are short on advice on how to achieve that—

Patrick Mercer: rose—

Lewis Moonie: I have only a limited time left, but the hon. Gentleman's experience in his regiment provided us with some advice on manpower.

Patrick Mercer: That advice has never been sought.

Lewis Moonie: I promise to look at that, as I have responsibility for all personnel and recruitment matters, along with all the other things that I look after.
	Overstretch is a problem in specific units, rather than the forces overall, although up to 59 per cent. of the Army has recently been deployed on active service. Clearly, that cannot be sustained in the long term. We are trying to rotate personnel, and have a roulement system in which we rotate all personnel who have been serving. I shall take up the case of the dentist raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot. We have been trying to prevent individuals from serving for such a long time, but we have used reserves to spare our regulars from deployment, as many of them will be redeployed if they have to go back. That was one of the reasons for the alteration.
	The point about people sitting around doing nothing is well taken. We have to deploy enough people to cover our needs in case there is a lot of work to be done. The fact that we had mercifully few casualties, even taking into account the fact that we had to deal with civilians and Iraqi soldiers as well as our own casualties, is something to be grateful for. However, lack of work is of great concern to our medical people. Nobody with considerable skills likes to be left sitting around doing nothing and watching their skills degrade. We will have to pay close attention to that.
	I shall make one or two general points. I shall look in detail at the point about Senegal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) along with colleagues from the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, and get back to him. On numbers, we have made no plans, and I have seen nothing. I can say hand on heart that I have seen nothing whatsoever in the MOD to suggest that we are about to cut regiments. That does not mean that regiments will not be cut and roles will not be changed—no Minister could make any such promise to the House. That has not happened in the past, and I am not going to do it tonight. However, no such suggestions have been made to us. Capabilities change, configurations of forces must change, and the numbers and expertise of our personnel have to change with them. That is not done by faceless bureaucrats, as the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) unkindly suggested, but by uniformed senior personnel. It is always the MOD in general which is blamed for things. However, a bunch of Ministers have not decided to sit down and be as sod-like as possible to the armed forces. In fact, the armed forces themselves decided what capabilities they needed to fulfil the commitments that we asked them to make.
	I have not covered nearly enough. On housing targets, I accept the problem. We are making improvements. On accommodation, when I tell soldiers that I will improve their accommodation and they are living rent free, they whine. They quite like roughing it, living rent free and spending their money on something else—not all of them, I may add, but a substantial minority.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) made some interesting points, about which I shall write to him, as I do not have time to deal with them now. The points about logistics are well taken. There were individual instances in which supplies did not come up to the mark—
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
	That this House agrees with the report [10th June] of the Liaison Committee.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Park Road Branch Post Office

Michael Jabez Foster: I present the petition of Mr. William Burkitt and 400 other of my constituents living in the Park Road area of Hastings. I wholly support the petition, which calls on the Post Office to withdraw its proposals to close the Park Road branch post office, which would cause undue distress to many, particularly elderly, people living in the area. The petition
	Declares that the proposed closure of Park Road Branch Post Office, Hastings, will cause difficulties to elderly and disabled residents and that the alternatives proposed by the Post Office are not acceptable.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Post Office to reconsider such proposals and allow the Park Road branch to continue providing a service to the community.
	And the Petitioners remain, &c.
	To lie upon the Table.

RAF Northolt

Gareth Thomas: On behalf of almost 1,000 of my constituents, I present a petition opposing any further expansion in the use by commercial air traffic of RAF Northolt, which neighbours my constituency. My constituents are concerned that the possible increase
	in the current level of air traffic accruing from the shared military and commercial use of RAF Northolt would have adverse environmental consequences and social costs, namely noise and atmospheric pollution, as well as a considerable further reduction in the amenity of the local people.
	They ask the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Defence
	not to allow any further significant increase in the number of flights departing or landing at RAF Northolt.
	To lie upon the Table.

IMMIGRATION RULES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Si�n Simon: I am grateful for the opportunity to have an Adjournment debate on a matter in which my interest was first stimulated when some constituents relatively recently began to express concern that it seemed to be impossible to obtain anything other than printed copies of changes to the immigration rules.
	It is widely accepted that the internet is the future, and indeed the present. There have been many statements from the Government over the years about the importance of citizens being able to interact with the Government online, and much progress has been made. Acts of Parliament and most statutory instruments are already available on the web, but that does not mean that all legislation is readily available. In particular, until three days ago, changes to the immigration rules were available only in paper form from The Stationery Office.
	Surely of all Government information, that which is likely to be of most interest to many people abroad should be available through the medium that is global, virtual and free. That may not sound like a big issue, but if someone is denied knowledge of legal changes affecting his immigration case because he cannot get the documents, it certainly is. The immigration and nationality directorate has a website that is reasonably comprehensive.
	I was pleased to learn from a constituent earlier this week that what would have been one of my main requests to the Minister has already been metas I said, just three days ago. It is now the case that any changes to the immigration rules are shown separately, as well as being incorporated in the consolidated version of the rules that was previously available. Until that extra facility was added earlier this week, anyone wishing to spot the changes would have had a difficult, if not almost impossible, task. I congratulate the Minister on that useful and important new facility.
	There are still one or two other points that I would like to raise. Unless the Minister is aware of any later change not yet mentioned on the IND website, it is correct to say that the latest changes to the immigration rules are those that took place on 30 May. That is the first set of changes to be separately documented on the website, but it was not added until 9 June, 10 days after it took effect. As those changes to the immigration rules do not appear to have been accompanied by any press releasecertainly, none is mentioned on the websiteit follows that most people will have been ignorant of them for 10 days before they were made available on the website.
	Of course, those changes were the first to be separately available. On the same date, the consolidated version of the rules was also updated. I wonder whether the delay in making available the new rules, which were effective from 30 May, occurred because work on the consolidated version was not finished. If that was the case, I urge the Minister to ensure in respect of any future changes that the changed document is made available without delay and that it is noted at the top of the consolidated document that the new changes, which are effective from a stated date, have yet to be incorporated in the consolidated version. In that way, it will be possible for any interested parties to work out for themselves the effect of any changes. I submit to her that it is far better than allowing people to be in the dark simply to put the information on the web so that they can see how the law has changed and the ways in which it might affect them.
	While I warmly welcome the publication of the documents on the IND website, I wonder whether it will be possible to go further. The Minister may well have a technical explanation of why it is not possible to do so. I am by no means expert in these matters, as no doubt she and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are, but I wonder why the immigration rules and any changes to them are not published as statutory instruments. That is the usual method that the Government use to introduce secondary legislation and I cannot think of any logical reason why the immigration rules and changes to them are treated so differently. I look forward to hearing her remarks about that.
	I have mentioned the changes to the rules that took effect on 30 May. An examination of that changed document shows that there have been no fewer than seven sets of changes in the past 12 months: on 27 August, 7 November and 26 November 2002, and on 8 January, 10 February, 31 March and 30 May 2003. An examination of press releases issued by Ministers appears to show that only four of those changes merited a press release. The other three sets of changes do not appear to have merited a press release of any kind. I cannot help but wonder if it is right for changes to be made and a press release not to be issued in explanation. Does the issue relate to the point that I made about statutory instruments, which tend to be published with details of the new legislation followed by an explanatory note? Immigration rules do not currently have the benefit of such explanations.
	While the IND is to be commended for many aspects of its website, and especially the consolidated immigration rules, one aspect is now clearly out of datethe How we apply the rules section. For example, that section still refers to spouse visas as being issued for a 12-month period, whereas since April, they have been issued for 24 months. I note that the website was updated today, which is commendable, but that period is still erroneously listed as 12 months rather than 24 months. I ask the Minister to ensure that the website is updated not only regularly, but properly.
	The major set of changes in the past 12 months appears to be those that were published on 31 March this year and took effect on 1 April. There were seven pages of detailed changes and a press release was duly issued at the same time. It is three or four pages long and was issued in the name of the Home Secretary. The changes deal with all sorts of matters, including tightening up on switchersthose who come to the UK in one visa capacity and then want to change to a different category. They also deal with the change in the spouse visa period that I have mentioned.
	The press release said nothing about switchers. On spouse visas, it merely said:
	The changes will also tighten up the rules on marriage to prevent people getting involved in sham marriages as a way of getting into, or staying in, the UK.
	That is hardly a lot of detail and does not specifically mention two years at all. In other words, the press release gives minimal detail about the changes. That is to be expected, as it is in the nature of a press release, but it is also why we could do with some more detailed and up-to-date explanation on the website.
	It was not until the website was updated on 10 April, nine days after the legislation took effect, that those not in possession of a written copy of the statement of changes to immigration rules could read about the detailed changes that had already passed into law. Those seven pages of detailed change included some very important ones. Following the White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, which was issued in February 2002, many people wanted to know which of its proposals would make it into the immigration rules and in what form. The fact that the wording of the detailed changes was not available in any form on the internet until after the changes had taken effect bolsters the problem that I am highlighting. I urge the Minister to speed up access to any future changes and to consider whether it would be possible for such documents to be published as statutory instruments, as well as on the IND website.
	As regards the changes that took effect on 1 April, the Minister may recollect that I asked two written questions about the matter. The first asked
	whether, following the recent changes made to paragraph 284 of the Immigration Rules, he will take steps to make it clear that the holder of a fianc(e) visa of six months' duration can apply for their spouse visa in the UK.
	The Minister replied:
	It was never intended that the no-switching provisionprohibiting those given leave to enter for six months or less from switching into marriagewould include those given leave to enter as fiancs. This will be made absolutely clear in the next rules change.
	I was happy to get that answer, but I point out that when the next rule change was made on 30 May, it did not incorporate any change to paragraph 284. I therefore ask the Minister for an assurance that the issue remains on her to-do list.
	My second question asked
	when, following the recent changes made to paragraph 287 of the Immigration Rules, the current holder of a 12 month duration spouse visa issued in March or earlier can apply for their Indefinite Leave to Remain visa; and whether such a person may apply for indefinite leave to remain near the end of their current 12 month visa.
	The Minister kindly replied:
	The recent increase in the probationary period on marriage to two years will not affect applications to remain on the basis of marriage made before 1 April. The probationary period in these cases will remain one year and applications for settlement can be made no more than one month in advance of the end of the probationary period.[Official Report, 15 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 433W.]
	Again, I welcomed that answer, but it raises a more profound point. Anyone reading the immigration rules would undoubtedly conclude that the Minister's answer, although eminently sensible, is not actually what the rules say. That is, the changes introduced with effect from 1 April did not incorporate any transitional provisions to make the situation clear. Will the Minister consider whether it might be sensible to incorporate transitional provisions in the immigration rules where a profound change is being made, such as the duration of spouse visas moving from one year to two years?
	According to the changes introduced with effect from 30 May this year, the current rules were laid before Parliament on 23 May 1994. They have since been amended no fewer than 25 times. I suggest to the Minister that it may be time for the 1994 rules and those 25 sets of changes to be replaced by one new consolidated set of rules. That would make it easier for everyone, including the IND, to follow them.
	I am conscious that these matters are not exactly sexy, but they are no less important for that. I am very grateful to the Minister and the House for their time, and for the positive work that the Minister has already done and the positive changes that she has already made. I look forward to hearing her comments on what further progress she plans to make.

Beverley Hughes: I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) for raising such important issues. He demonstrates a commendable and remarkable depth of knowledge of a detailed and technical subject. He has given credit where it is due and identified some important aspects, to which we can make improvements.
	Immigration policy is high on the public agenda, and my hon. Friend is right that immigration rules play a vital part in setting out and interpreting the Government's policy on that. Too often, the media concentrate solely on the abuse of the asylum process and the way in which we should deal with economic migrants who come to the United Kingdom and claim asylum. However, as my hon. Friend made clear, immigration policy goes much wider than that.
	Many thousands of people come to this country each year for entirely legitimate reasonsand often support our economyto work, study, join families or marry and settle with their spouse. Patterns of migration are constantly changing and we need to ensure that our immigration rules keep up with them. We must also ensure that changes are made to prevent new avenues of abuse and that those who are given leave to remain in this country have a valid reason for staying.
	As hon. Members may know, the immigration rules constitute a statement of policies that the Secretary of State is obliged to produce from time to time under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. The statutory instrument process that my hon. Friend mentioned is not the process in law for making changes to the immigration rules. I shall explain the reasons for that. The rules set out the basic criteria for the admission and stay of persons subject to immigration control. Changes to the rules can take effect on the day when they are made or on a specified date in future, and, of course, there is a mechanism whereby Parliament can challenge such changes. If the House is sitting, hon. Members are notified of changes in the form of a documented statement of changes. If the House is not sitting, notification occurs via a Command Paper. Changes are deposited with the Votes and Proceedings desk in the Journal Office in this House and in the Printed Paper Office in another place. They are also listed on the Order Paper for each House.
	The previous two sets of changes came into effect this year on 1 April and 30 May respectively. The first set covered issues such as adoption, the highly skilled migrant programme, the innovator scheme, the long residence concession, marriage and employment matters. The second covered sector-based employment schemes and the Hague convention.
	When possible, we publish in advance any proposed changes to the immigration rules and consult interested parties. The decision on whether changes should be accompanied by a press notice depends on the extent of the change and on whether it has previously been announced. For example, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the introduction of the sector-based scheme in the rule change of 30 May in his Budget report on 9 April.
	On the 1 April changes, we first published details of the proposals to increase the probationary period on marriage to two years in the White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, to which my hon. Friend referred. In it, we explained our reasons for proposing the change: it would help to prevent sham marriages. It also gave us the opportunity to take on board comments from the public and from immigration organisations. The White Paper also gave information about the highly skilled migrant programme.
	In some instances, we respond to immediate concerns and, for good reasons, it is necessary to make a change quickly without prior publication or consultation. One example is the recent increase in the sponsorship age on marriage to 18 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) wrote to us expressing anxiety that vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds were being forced into marriage against their wishes with spouses abroad. That is different from arranged marriages in which both parties consent to the marriage. It was said that young people were being duped by their parents into going abroad, held prisoner and put under severe pressure to marry someone whom their parents selected. We did not feel that we could allow that to continue, and considered that urgent action was needed. The opportunity arose to include the change in the immigration rules quickly and it was introduced without public consultation. There are other circumstances in which changes are introduced without prior public consultation, when there is a deliberate decision not to make an announcement in advance. This is when a measure is being brought in to preserve or strengthen immigration control, and it is important to have that facility.
	The Government need the flexibility to act in this area without delay, when that is necessary in the public interest. The current format of the immigration rules provides that flexibility in the most appropriate way. That flexibility would be diminished to an unacceptable level if the immigration rules had to be produced as a statutory instrument. As the House will know, as a general rule, statutory instruments subject to negative resolution must be laid at least 21 days before they come into force. Such a delay could have serious implications when we had to introduce a new visa regime, for example. As I have said, there are mechanisms to ensure that the Government are accountable to Parliament in respect of changes made to the immigration rules.
	My hon. Friend raised the extremely important point about the accessibility of the public to changes in the rules. We are committed to making any changes to the rules as accessible to the public as possible, in line with our general commitment to openness and to modernising public services, including through the best use of information technology. In addition, we aim to incorporate any changes into the consolidated text of the immigration rules available on the immigration and nationality directorate website as soon as is practicable after they have been made. This reflects the commitment that we gave in the Home Office publication scheme, produced under section 19 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, to make information about current immigration, asylum and nationality legislation available on our website.
	A consolidated version of the immigration rules reflecting the most up-to-date text is already available on the website. The text can be found in the Law and Policy section alongside information about other immigration legislation and associated staff guidance. I want to continue to look at ways to improve the presentation and accessibility of material on the site, and we will aim to improve the timeliness of updates to the site. My hon. Friend made a point about that, which I take very well.
	As my hon. Friend mentioned, we have now changed our practice to ensure that any further changes to the immigration rules are also placed in the Law and Policy section as separate documents. During discussions with officials today, as a result of my hon. Friend being granted this debate, I also asked them whether we could highlight the changes in the consolidated text, at least for a period of time, so that people reading the text can immediately see what recent changes there have been. That way, it will be clearer to hon. Members and their constituents what changes have been made. We will also work to improve our performance in updating the published guidance in the How we apply the rules section. In response to another point made by my hon. Friend, we aim formally to consolidate the whole of the rules later this year so that up-to-date copies can be obtained from the Stationery Office. This will also help everyone to see and understand all the changes made in recent years, and how this updates and strengthens the rules.
	On my hon. Friend's point about his recent written questions, I can assure him that we will amend the rules at some future point to make explicit the position of fiances in relation to switching. As I have made clear, the no-switching provision does not apply to fiances. There is no need to introduce transitional provisions to the immigration rules. Changes to the rules cannot apply retrospectively, and the date from which they take effect is always shown on the statement of changes.
	I hope that I have addressed my hon. Friend's concerns in my reply. I also hope that his raising this important, although technical, issue will be of assistance to other people who are interested in this very important subject.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Six o'clock.